Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Argentina) Order 1996, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mongolia) Order 1996 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1996 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 July.

EXPORT OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT AND DUAL USE GOODS TO IRAQ

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Appendices to the Report of an Inquiry by The Right Honourable Sir Richard Scott into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions, which was laid before the House on 15th February.—[Mr. Nelson.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Object. Yes, without explanation, I certainly object.

Madam Speaker: There can be no possible opposition or objection on this type of motion.

Mr. Dalyell: Why do we have the motion then?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Beef Ban

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Governments outside the European Union which have separate bans on British beef products to secure their removal. [36405]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I will continue to raise the matter with third countries and, indeed, I discussed the matter with the South African Agriculture Minister, Mr. Van Nierkerk, recently. South Africa is of course our largest export market outside the EU for beef and beef products.

Mr. Dowd: Is not it the case that the United States introduced the ban in 1989 and 30 or more non-EU countries have introduced restrictions on British beef products in the intervening period? Can the Minister confirm that if enforcement action had been taken in 1989 and subsequently, the plight of British beef would not be as it is today, the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases would be sharply reduced, the EU ban would be lifted much more easily and the British beef industry would not be suffering as it is?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that BSE is in sharp decline. We have had about 160,000 confirmed cases. The peak was in 1992, when we had about 36,500 confirmed cases. Last year they were down to 15,000. Leaving aside any questions of cull, we would expect in the order of 8,000 confirmed cases this year, falling to 5,000 next year, falling to 2,800 or thereabouts in 1998, again, leaving aside questions of cull. So the trend is sharply downwards.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of disappointment on the Conservative Benches at the failure of the European Court of Justice to rule in our advantage on those matters. He will also be aware of the resentment continuing at the obstruction by Brussels to any form of export to countries outside Europe, although the main markets are of course inside Europe.
Against the background of that lack of progress, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is growing resistance on the Conservative Benches to the cost and waste of the destruction of large numbers of animals, as indicated in early-day motion 1180 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which I have countersigned?

Mr. Hogg: I understand the anxiety in the House and elsewhere. However, the measures that the Government have put in place, such as the 30-month rule and the consequential spending, were intended to reinforce public confidence in British beef and ensure that the vital links in the productive chain are kept going. Those purposes were good, and in my judgment people can eat British beef with complete confidence.

Dr. Strang: Is not it the case that the Government still do not have in place all the elements of the selective


slaughter scheme and that we shall not, therefore, be in a position to meet all the unsatisfactory conditions that the Prime Minister agreed at the Florence summit? May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, when the Prime Minister reported to the House on the Florence summit, he said that we would be in a position to take the first major steps in lifting the beef ban in October? Is not the Government's incompetence again jeopardising the beef industry, involving hundreds of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Hogg: At the moment, the legislation has not been signed. There are two relevant orders, neither of which has yet been signed. It may help the House if I give an undertaking that there will be no mandatory killing of animals under the slaughter scheme unless and until the House has had an opportunity to debate the relevant orders. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the generality of the issue before the House rises, so at that stage the orders will probably not have been signed. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a business statement shortly.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Budgen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the mechanisms for distributing payments made under the common agricultural policy to European Union farmers. [36406]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Payments under the various CAP schemes are distributed to eligible applicants in accordance with each member state's administrative procedures.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important distribution is between the European Union and member states? What proportion of the enormous payments that will be made to British farmers under the BSE eradication scheme will be met by the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Baldry: The European Community confirmed only recently that it will meet about 70 per cent. of market value under the selective cull scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that, several weeks ago when a couple of statements in the House referred to the outbreak of BSE, I said that some casualties would probably not get compensation? Those include meat packers, lorry drivers in the meat distribution industry, and various others, many of whom have been made redundant during the past several weeks. Will he assure me that such people will be considered for compensation, just like the farmers? Is anything on offer for those people, many of whom are now in the dole queue?

Mr. Baldry: We made it clear from the outset that we shall support parts of the market that are essential for keeping the beef market going, and the renderers and abattoirs have been given help where necessary. Inevitably, however, some people, including farmers, will have suffered losses as a consequence of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's announcements on

20 March. It would never have been possible to compensate everyone for the consequences of what has happened to the beef market, and we have never disguised that fact.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent report about the CAP produced in the European Union, which says that 20 per cent. of farmers get 80 per cent. of the CAP budget? In terms of population, that translates into less than 1 per cent. of the population of the European Union picking up 40 per cent. of the £60 billion budget. Does he agree that never in the field of human subsidy has so much been given by so many to so few?

Mr. Baldry: Farmers receive the payments for which they are eligible under the CAP. My hon. Friend's question suggests that more money should be directed towards smaller farmers, but that would hinder efficiency, distort competitiveness and discriminate against United Kingdom farmers. Generally, United Kingdom farmers have larger farms than farmers elsewhere in the European Union, and they benefit under these arrangements.

Beef Ban

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the lifting of the European Union ban on exports of United Kingdom beef and beef products. [36407]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have made excellent progress: some elements of the ban have already been lifted and we have agreed to a framework for its complete removal.

Mr. Pickthall: I thank the Minister for his calm reply. Given the fact that new scientific evidence seems to cast doubt even on the lifting of the gelatine ban, given the crisis in carcase storage, given the uncertainties of the slaughter programme—which are compounded by the scandalous way that the work has been allocated to slaughterhouses—and given the disagreements of many people in the industry about levels of compensation, how can the Minister be confident that his Government can deliver a lifting of the ban on exports of British beef inside a time scale that will avoid a total catastrophe for the British beef industry?

Mr. Hogg: It is important for hon. Members to bear it in mind that we have agreed to a framework: it requires certain things of us and it imposes certain obligations on others. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the judgments should be made on scientific and objective criteria. We know what steps we have to take, and the two outstanding steps are the legislation with respect to the selective cull and the issue of traceability. The passport systems are now up and running. I hope that in the autumn we can go to the European Commission and say that we have satisfied the necessary preconditions, and we then expect the Commission to come forward with some proposal for the relaxation of the ban.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in urging McDonald's to return to using British beef as soon as possible? I do not have an interest in this regard, but I think that it is about time that it started flying the flag.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has made a sound point, and I hope that McDonald's responds to his invitation.

Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister recall the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House in which he set out the framework that had been agreed at the Florence summit and in which he referred to four stages that he anticipated would be completed by November? The Prime Minister then said that he expected that the export position for British beef would be restored to that which existed before 27 March—he said "would", not "could" or "should". Will the Minister now reinforce that promise to the House and to the beef industry?

Mr. Hogg: The framework agreement is quite plain: it provides for a progressive lifting of the ban, in circumstances that are to he judged by the scientific and objective criteria that are spelt out. We are meeting our obligations and I expect the others to meet their obligations.

Mr. Nicholls: Valuable though the lifting of the ban is, it need not be seen as a substitute for considering the introduction of a price deficiency mechanism. Until such time as we cart come up with some sort of mechanism that compensates or ensures that clean beef can be sold at its real market price, the domestic beef market is bound to remain depressed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least say that that has not been ruled out of his considerations?

Mr. Hogg: I can understand why my hon. Friend has advanced this argument. It is true that producers are selling beef for consumption at a substantially lower price than they did this time last year, which is extremely worrying. The reason for that decline is the lack of consumer confidence in the United Kingdom domestic market and elsewhere—of course, we cannot export. However, our domestic market has collapsed less dramatically than that of Italy, Germany and France. We cannot directly restore consumer confidence, but we can describe the steps that we have taken that should ensure that consumers eat beef with confidence. We secured a package of measures at Luxembourg in early June that will provide some support. However, I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will come forward with a deficiency payments scheme.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that beef producers—particularly smaller producers—face increasing anguish? Does he accept also that, even if the incidence of the disease declines—as we hope and as he promised—his cohort proposals for the dairy industry could produce many more BSE cases than the Minister expects or wants?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about anguish. I have never tried to pretend other than that this is a crisis for British agriculture, and for beef producers in particular. I understand his points about the selective cull: it is a distressing business for those whose cattle may be part of the scheme. I assure the House that we will not pursue compulsory slaughtering under a selective cull scheme unless the House has an opportunity to discuss the relevant order.

Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's hopeful prognosis about the incidence of

BSE, is it not a fact that the reaffirmation by the European Court of Justice of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the European Union with regard to British beef exports to third countries is an affront to our interest? Is it not a clear case of European subsidiarity in action: namely, that we are subsidiary to the European Union, particularly in matters of law?

Mr. Hogg: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that our application for interim relief was not successful. We shall proceed with the legal action. We had hoped to secure relief in terms of exports to third countries that could not re-export to Europe and we thought that our arguments were good in law. Therefore, I am disappointed that the European Court did not take the same view.

Dr. Strang: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier reply to me mean that there will be a general debate next week on the selective slaughter scheme but that the Government will not allow us to debate the legislation necessary to implement such a scheme? Does the Minister intend to embark on the selective slaughtering scheme during the summer without any mandatory killing? Is that not a recipe for a dog's breakfast of a selective slaughter scheme? Is it not clear that the same chaos and incompetence that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted on the radio this morning continues to dog the 30-month slaughter scheme and will surround the new selective slaughter scheme?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Lord President will make a business statement, so I do not want to go into too much detail before then. The sensible way forward might be to discuss the selective cull and compensation and related matters next week. The House should know about the draft orders because they will be published. However, they will not be signed at that stage. That will give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter in general terms and in an informed manner.
During the recess, it is clearly helpful to have the ability to trace animals that ultimately might be slaughtered under the selective slaughter scheme. It might be necessary to have the power to place restriction orders upon them and, therefore, it might be necessary to sign those orders during the recess. However, I give a critical undertaking that no cattle will be compulsorily slaughtered under the selective slaughter scheme until the House has an opportunity to discuss the relevant order: the compensation order. The House will have the opportunity to discuss that order as a precondition of the compulsory slaughter of cattle under the scheme.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? Is it not an affront to the sovereignty and the integrity of Parliament that the European Commission should deny this country—with a national Government in the European Union—the right to export our beef to a third country that wishes to buy it? Is that not in breach of the general agreement on tariffs and trade international treaty? Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment about that and confirm whether he agrees with me that the European Court is a court of vested interests and injustice?

Mr. Hogg: We all have our own ways of expressing our thoughts. I said earlier that I was disappointed by the European Court's decision on our application for interim relief. I have no reason to express my views in any different way. My hon. Friend can express himself as he pleases. I, by temperament, express myself in somewhat more moderate terms. But both of us are disappointed.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that for the selective accelerated cull to work, compensation must be at replacement value of culled cows? Is not that important not just for the farmers but for the rebuilding of the herds and, therefore, for the structure of farms and for the whole rural economy?
Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the Treasury opposes the payment of replacement value compensation? If that is true, will he tell the Treasury that if it continues with such resistance, and if it works, whatever residual support there is for the Conservative party among farmers will soon evaporate entirely?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to look at our consultation paper, paragraph 12 of which is most relevant to the question that he has just asked. It deals with the valuation of the relevant beast and sets out the arguments for market value and replacement value. I understand the force of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has deployed. It is important to keep it in mind that the replacement value contains a degree of betterment. The question that all of us have to decide is the extent to which it is right to cast that additional cost on the taxpayer. That is a matter that has to be resolved. But I have already made the point that a mandatory slaughter policy will not be carried out until the House has had the opportunity to debate the order which, for procedural reasons, happens to be the compensation order.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the common agricultural policy. [36408]

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy. [36410]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As is well known, the Government consider that the CAP needs reforming to reduce its costs to consumers and taxpayers, cut bureaucracy and facilitate EU enlargement. I have frequently impressed that view on the Commission. The forthcoming Commission initiatives on reform of the beef and dairy regimes will provide important opportunities to press for changes along those lines.

Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the fact that British farms tend to be larger and more efficient than their European counterparts, what reassurance has my right hon. and learned Friend sought from Commissioner Fischler to ensure that further proposals for the reform of the CAP will not adversely discriminate against British farmers as they have so often done in the past?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is in fact the same point that my hon. Friend the Minister

of State made in response to the question from our hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). It is true that UK farms on average are larger and therefore, if I might use the jargon, the policies of modulation work against our interests. I have taken every opportunity to impress that proposition upon Commissioner Fischler and the Agriculture Council in general.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the CAP accounts for one of the largest parts of our contribution to Europe and that that net contribution each year is some £3,000 million, which every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom has to pay out to farmers on the continent of Europe? Should not we find a way of bringing that cost down? Should not we aim to bring that cost down to zero in the next five years?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that the overall cost of the common agricultural policy is too high and should be reduced. I think, too, that it has a number of other long-term and structural defects that justify its substantial reform. I think further that the negotiations that we are to have in the World Trade Organisation talks at the end of the century, with the policies of enlargement to which the Government are committed, will bring such pressures on the European common agricultural policy that it will have to be modified substantially.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the overwhelming feeling of déjà vu that I feel at the moment having sat on these Benches for 17 years, hearing the same moaning questions from the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches and the same tedious replies—not always as moderately expressed as they are by the present Minister—again and again? In fact, the common agricultural policy has not changed in the past 17 years. Is not the truth that the only way that we will get real change is with a change of Government?

Mr. Hogg: Forgive me for saying so, but that is just a policy of slapstick, and I can play it as well as the hon. Gentleman if I must, but I choose not to. The truth is that we have seen substantial reform over time. The 1992 reforms are of real significance, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has never really had the credit that he deserves for having achieved them. We are now seeing important evidence of change, for example, in the fruit and vegetable regime. Perhaps most significant was the report that Commissioner Fischler made last December to the Madrid council, when he made it absolutely plain that, for a variety of reasons—I do not have time to go into them—the status quo was not sustainable. There is now pressure for change from within, and the external factors to which I have referred will drive that forward.

Mrs. Golding: Will the Minister ask the Minister of State whether he remembers assuring European Standing Committee A on common agricultural policy compensation proposals that Britain was to have
a comprehensive system of animal passports"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 June 1996; c. 5.]
by the end of this month? Was the Minister aware that the scheme was to apply only to cattle born since 1 July? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Minister of State why he thinks that this would have made a major contribution to the lifting of the ban on British beef?

Mr. Hogg: It is a slightly rum procedure that I should be asked to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but no matter. Passports are important because we want to have a proper record. The position is that cattle born after 1 July must have passports. We started to issue passports for England and Wales on 15 July and will issue them for Scotland from 1 August. What that does not provide for, of course, is a computer-based record of movements. We are considering feasibility studies for that in the hope that we can have a comprehensive computer-based record of movements in place some time in the early part of next year.

Mr. Gill: Given the substantial vested interest in the common agricultural policy by other countries that are diametrically opposed to the interests of the agricultural industry in this country, does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that it is a triumph of hope over experience to think that the common agricultural policy will be reformed in a radical and meaningful way, and would it not therefore be more honest to say to the House and to the British nation that one is either in the common agricultural policy, warts and all, or one is out? Would that not be a more intellectually honest approach?

Mr. Hogg: I have never tried to conceal from the House that the process of reforming the common agricultural policy is extremely difficult. It is true that there is no appetite for change within the European Council, with the possible exception of the Government of Sweden.
But—and there are two important buts—first, the Commission and, I think, the majority of its members—certainly, Commissioner Fischler—now understand, as perhaps they always did, the importance of change. Secondly, the external pressures to which I have already referred—the WTO talks, and the pressure for enlargement—will, in my view, inevitably drive the policy of reform forward. I concede all that has been said about there being no appetite for change, and about hard pounding, but I believe that reform will happen, although less fast than my hon. Friend and I would wish.

Set-aside Land

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve the scheme for set-aside land. [36409]

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Changes to the management rules for set-aside will come into effect next year to help protect wildlife in general and ground-nesting birds such as the skylark and lapwing in particular. The changes will restrict the periods in which cutting and cultivation of set-aside land can take place, while still enabling farmers to take action against weeds.

Mr. Flynn: Why is the amount of long-term set-aside so pitifully small? We are not doing much to preserve lovely creatures such as the brown hare and the skylark. The number of skylarks has declined by 30 per cent. since 1969.
Should we not concentrate on the skylark, so that we can continue to praise that beautiful bird along with the poet, saying:

"Hail to thee, blithe Spirit!
Bird thou never wert,
That from Heaven, or near it,
Pourest thy full heart
In profuse strains of unpremeditated art"?

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Boswell: I have the impression that we are approaching the end of term. I am not sure that I wish to match the hon. Gentleman's rendition of Shelley; what I will say to him, more practically, is that we do not regard set-aside as more than a short-term expedient alternative to radical reform of the common agricultural policy. We wish to use it to best effect: that is why we have modified the rules after consultation this year in the way that I described in my answer, and it is why we work continuously to improve our agri-environment programmes alongside set-aside.
Hon. Members may be interested to learn that some studies have already shown that the wild bird population is 15 times as large on some of the land that has been set aside, or otherwise taken out of production, as it is on land that remains in full cropping.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Although skylarks greatly like set-aside land, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the countryside stewardship scheme is now under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It is a very good scheme, because it pays farmers to do something to help the environment and improve conservation. That is much better than paying them for doing nothing.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is a noted conservationist. I regularly pay tribute to his interest in birds and plants. He is entirely right: the long-term answer is to emphasise the positive. That is why we not only took on countryside stewardship, but are increasing its funding this year and next to provide more viable ways of supporting the wildlife population.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: As grain prices are very high internationally, and as intervention stocks of cereals are very low, is it not time to phase out the set-aside policy and use the cash saved either to cut the costs of the CAP or to deal with the BSE crisis?

Mr. Boswell: As I have said, we would support a radical reform of the CAP. In particular, if set-aside were reduced to zero this year—which a number of member states have advocated—that reduction would be accompanied by a lowering of the high levels of arable payments. I should make it clear that that is for the coming crop year, not the present one. I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of our approach, which is based on a radical reform that will assist both the taxpayer and, we believe, the environment.

Fishing Policy

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in encouraging greater consultation with the regions in respect of fishing policy. [36411]

Mr. Baldry: At the April Fisheries Council, I proposed the creation of regional consultative committees to increase regional input into the common fisheries policy and to involve fishermen from member states active in particular fisheries. My initiative received a positive response from the Fisheries Commissioner, and I await developments on her suggestion for a pilot committee to test the idea.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he was as surprised as the fishermen of the south-west when, on Mrs. Bonino's visit there, the problem of quota hopping seemed to be news to her. Can he say what the Government intend to do about quota hopping and about hammering home the fact that much of our fishing quota is taken up by Spanish boats?

Mr. Baldry: Quota hopping is an unacceptable form of fishing. We have national fishing quotas. If there is a UK fishing quota, it must make sense that UK fish must be for UK fishermen, and we will shortly table proposals at the intergovernmental conference to enable us to secure that objective.

Dr. Godman: What recent consultations have taken place with east coast fishermen on the dangerously low level of the North sea herring stock? Does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the European Union to impose a North sea-wide ban on herring fishing? Should not such a ban also be imposed on industrial fishing throughout the North sea?

Mr. Baldry: There has been much discussion with the industry on the east coast because the most recent scientific advice, which we received in mid-May, showed that unless herring catches were reduced sharply and swiftly, that fishery would have to be closed next year. We have accepted the need for serious remedial measures this year to avoid a complete closure next year and to ensure that the stock is rapidly rebuilt over the next two years. That will be of long-term benefit to the fishing industry, and I think that it recognises that. There is also widespread recognition that we must reconsider the practice of industrial fishing, especially its impact on species such as sand-eels. That is why I have advocated a precautionary quota for sand-eels.

British Beef

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to support the promotion of British beef in the shops [36412]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I am leading an initiative to promote British beef in shops and other outlets. Forequarter cuts are currently being promoted and I am holding a series of meetings and seminars to help promote retail sales further.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend. Does she agree that mince and tatties is a much-loved traditional Scottish

dish, rich in taste and nutritional value? Does she further agree that British minced beef is a prime product and that Europeans are mugs to miss out?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of our regional dishes, which are well known throughout the country, use mince. The House will welcome the success of the Meat and Livestock Commission's quality mince campaign, which I understand is going very well.

Mr. Morley: Those measures are welcome for reassuring the consumer, but is not the wider European and world market important for beef sales? Will the Minister confirm that the Europeans have kept their side of bargain by implementing orders under the Florence agreement and that the debate next week is only a smokescreen for the fact that the orders under the slaughter programme will not be in place until the autumn? What credibility does that give the Government in reassuring our European partners and the British consumer?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has, in answer to several questions this afternoon, spelt out clearly the way in which we are taking forward that aspect of the Florence agreement. The hon. Gentleman will have heard him say that there will be further announcements in the business statement later this afternoon. I am sorry that, in the context of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), the hon. Gentleman did not feel it appropriate to support the campaigns to promote British sales at home. It is clear that beef products and sales, despite the fact that much work is needed on the forequarter cuts, are holding up well in the UK. I am pleased to report that the sale of steaks for grilling and frying has almost resumed the level that existed before the crisis started.

Mr. Fabricant: If my hon. Friend is not doing anything this summer, will she come with me to Saltzburg where we can set up shop outside a Wienerwald restaurant—or maybe we can go to Paris and set up shop outside a Quick restaurant—and hand out free portions of British beef to show the Austrians, Germans and French exactly what they are missing? Is she as horrified as I am that the best that the Opposition can come up with is criticism of our policy on British beef instead of talking it up?

Mrs. Browning: I share my hon. Friend's concern about Opposition Members not playing their part in promoting British beef, which is a first-class product. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am awfully sorry, but I am spring-cleaning my house this summer.

Slaughter Policy

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the capacity of abattoirs to cope with the slaughter policy agreed in Florence. [36413]

Mr. Baldry: We expect the existing backlog on the over-30-month scheme to be cleared by the autumn.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister look again at the two abattoirs in East Anglia registered under the BSE


scheme, both of which have been operating considerably over capacity for the past few weeks? Is he aware that the difficulties caused to farmers by the low forage stocks and the backlog of animals waiting for slaughter are causing considerable concern?

Mr. Baldry: Under the scheme, we have so far slaughtered more than 250,000 animals—a very large number. We are taking on extra cold storage and I estimate that the backlog will be cleared by mid-October. Farmers should know that any of their cattle that have not yet been slaughtered will be slaughtered in the very near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36435]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister explain why a Treasury document shows that, under this Government, the economy is set to decline to the level of those of Brazil, Thailand and Mexico? Is not that a telling indictment of the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: One of the attractions of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that it looks forward to the possibility of what may happen 10 years ahead, whatever the policies followed and whoever the Government may be. I have no doubt that some of the matters in the document that the hon. Gentleman would consider barmy are policies that the Treasury considered might be adopted by a Government other than this one.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36436]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning today's postal strike, which is causing widespread disruption to my constituents and throughout the country, and costing businesses many thousands of pounds? Does he agree that any proposal to give new rights to trade unions would merely encourage the incidence of such strikes? Is not this yet further proof that new Labour brings new dangers to the British people?

The Prime Minister: Today's strikes cannot and should not be justified, and I roundly condemn them. They are costing the country millions and causing great inconvenience to many people who are not part of the dispute.

Mr. Skinner: Why?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why—he supports the strikes and I am pleased that he

acknowledges it. I am happy for the instincts of the Labour party to be laid bare by the hon. Gentleman; the House will be pleased to hear what he has to say.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the education spokesman, I understand, for the Opposition, said that the strikers should go to arbitration, which self-evidently must be right. I hope that we shall hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the striking unions. I should also hope to hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. New Labour laws to make strikes easier are exactly what the country does not want—and the Government will ensure that it does not get them.

Mr. Blair: Given that, as we speak, talks are taking place both here between the British and Irish Governments and in Belfast in respect of the peace process, after what, by common consent, must be judged the most damaging two weeks in the affairs of Northern Ireland since August 1994, does the Prime Minister agree that there are three essential foundation stones for rebuilding support for peace? The first is that the two Governments renew their relationship of trust, based firmly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the other negotiated agreements between them that remain intact and valid. Secondly, all sides must demonstrate their complete commitment to the rule of law and the Government their even-handedness in its application, whether in response to the threat of violence by those engaged in marches, or the evil punishment beatings that claimed their latest victim last night. Thirdly, all parties to the talks on Northern Ireland should move from matters of procedure to matters of substance as soon as is humanly possible, so that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that the constitutional path to peace has life in it, hope in it and, indeed, is the only sane route to the future.

The Prime Minister: The past 14 days have certainly been extremely difficult for everyone in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall try to respond to his three points. During the past few years, the British and Irish Governments have worked very closely together. It is important for the success of the talks that that co-operation continues, and it is this Government's intention that that co-operation shall continue. The Irish Government and the British Government do not, of course, agree about every issue under discussion, but I believe that our relations are strong enough on Government-to-Government and personal levels for those talks to continue, even while we seek a solution to the disagreements before us. That is what we are seeking to do.
Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law needs to prevail in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days—the violence, the intimidation and the aftermath of those scenes—are wholly unacceptable and should have no place in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
As to the future and the talks, I entirely agree that progress so far has been inadequate. It is our intention to try to ensure that the talks move forward rapidly from talks about procedure to talks about substance.
Our intention will be to try to turn the setbacks of the past couple of weeks into a positive advantage as the talks resume, and we will bring all our strength to bear to achieve that.

Mr. Yeo: In view of the remarkable transformation of Britain's competitive position, which has been brought about by our opt-out from the European social chapter and the virtual elimination of strikes, does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that a political party that claims to be seeking office should not only boast about its intentions to burden British business with the European social chapter obligation but cannot even unite its Back Benchers in condemning today's strike on the London underground?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the United Kingdom's competitive position at the moment. It is very important that we remain competitive in the areas to which he has referred, as well as others.
I think that I heard the deputy leader of the Labour party say a moment ago, "What about your social conscience?"—

Mr. Prescott: His social contract.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem roundly to condemn today's strikes, which are damaging our competitiveness, as I believe he should. No doubt his relationship with his sponsors prohibits him from doing so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36437]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: On the day when the Cabinet has apparently decided to start a new campaign to clamp down on public expenditure, beginning once again with freezing the pay of public sector workers, which it has no doubt done to try to pave the way for tax bribes for its supporters before the election, what does the Prime Minister say to parents in my borough who find that the secondary school that their children attend is having to go to the British American Tobacco company for sponsorship to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds? Is it acceptable that the Government have so underfunded public services to try to produce tax cuts that schooling has become dependent on profits from tobacco sales, when under-age smoking is at its highest level for 10 years?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making a silly point. He also knows about the growth in expenditure on, and provision for, education over recent years, the dramatic increase in spending per pupil and the improved educational opportunities that now exist. As for pay in the public sector, our view remains that set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor last September—that pay and price increases should be offset by efficiency savings. That has been our policy for some time, and we renewed it this morning.

Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what information Her Majesty's Government have

received about the crash of the Trans World Airlines airliner last night? Will he take the opportunity to express the sympathy of the House to all involved, and to reaffirm that, if terrorism is involved, international co-operation must be accelerated and that this country will play a full part in that process?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's last point. As yet, we have received no solid information about the cause of the dreadful crash that occurred a few hours ago. A great deal of examination is taking place, and as soon as I have further information I shall ensure that the House is aware of it. I have of course conveyed the sympathy of the House to the American Government, and told them that if they feel that we can assist in any way, we shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36438]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ainsworth: To return to the leaked Treasury document, is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)— I believe that he is the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend again—said this morning on the radio that some of the ideas in the leaked document would be included in the manifesto? Can the Prime Minister tell us which ideas—the privatisation of roads, cuts in post-16 education, the scrapping of old-age pensions, or the complete dismantling of the welfare state?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman stood up to ask that question immediately behind a shadow Chancellor who proposes to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds and take about £1,000 from every family with two children of that age who want to go into further education. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about manifesto pledges, he should worry about his own side's manifesto pledges, which would take child benefit away from people, raise extra taxes in Scotland and increase trade union rights so that there can be more strikes—and no doubt more sponsorship for the Labour party. Instead of talking drivel about policies that are not Government policies, he should concentrate on the drivel that is the policies of the Opposition.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36439]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's welcome news that unemployment has hit a five-year low—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Basildon?"]—is in part due to the Government's reforms to curb trade union policy? Is not new Labour's policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "For Basildon?"]—to give privileges to trade unions, which no previous Labour Government would have done, further proof that new phoney Labour—[Laughter.]—would destroy the economic success of this country with dangerous new policies for Basildon, Southend and the rest of the country?

The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks for the country as well as for Basildon and Southend, West. There is no doubt that yesterday's news about jobs was extremely good. We are now into the fourth successive year of falling unemployment. There is also increasing growth in new inward investment.

Mr. Janner: They are fiddled statistics.

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member shouts about statistics. They are new jobs. He may regard them as statistics, but I see them as new jobs. I welcome inward investment and new jobs, even in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I welcome them in any constituency. How he can refer to them as statistics when they are people's hopes, livelihoods and futures, I cannot imagine. However, the policies to which my hon. Friend referred would damage the lives, opportunities and futures of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and everybody else's.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36440]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister say in public what the Foreign Secretary told the positive Europe group of Tory Members last Monday: that there will be no toughening of the Government's stance on Europe—the Prime Minister is shaking his head already—that there will be no ruling out of a single currency and that there will be no additional demands for the repatriation of powers from Europe?

The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friends. He set out the policy in the public document that determines our negotiating posture for the intergovernmental conference—precisely and in detail. If the hon. Lady has not yet read it, I invite her to do so as she will find it a clear-cut and excellent document.

Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the fact that a group of Opposition Members

should publicly support the striking tube train drivers who are grinding London to a halt and costing Londoners and London commerce millions of pounds? Does he agree that the public must be deeply angered by the irresponsible action of union members and the last-minute pussyfooting by the Leader of the Opposition in not condemning the strike?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen a great amount of support for opposition to the strike from Opposition Members. No doubt the opposition to the strike will be clearly expressed by every Front Bencher over the next few days. Not only will there be a request that the parties go to arbitration—which is surely self-evidently right—but there will be a clear-cut condemnation of a strike that is causing a great deal of difficulty for many innocent people and damaging the industries concerned. When will we get that condemnation from the Opposition?

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996
Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Act 1996
Security Service Act 1996
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996
Noise Act 1996
Energy Conservation Act 1996
Civil Aviation (Amendment Act) 1996
Party Wall etc. Act 1996
Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996
Railway Heritage Act 1996
Education (Scotland) Act 1996
Deer (Amendment) Scotland Act 1996
City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Act 1996
Henry Johnson, Sons & Co., Limited Act 1996
Belfast Charitable Society Act 1996

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JULY—Opposition Day [20th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the future of the welfare state, followed by a debate on the role of the voluntary sector in British society. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which is the three-hour general debate that precedes a recess.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: Education Bill [Lords]; School Inspections Bill [Lords]; Deer (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Debate on the accelerated slaughter programme, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the draft code of conduct for Members.
Motion on the Central Railway Order.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that, on Tuesday 23 July, there will be a debate on documents relating to the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Wednesday 24 July, until Monday 14 October.
The provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER—There
will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1996 (Cm 3223).
WEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the Government have replied.
It will also be proposed that, on Tuesday 15 October, there will be a debate on the Merger Regulation in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the
Official Report. [Tuesday 23 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents: a) 7833/96; Common Fisheries Policy: Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV). b) Unnumbered; Common Fisheries Policy: Restructuring of the Community Fleet. c) Unnumbered; Conservation of

Fishery Resources: Technical measures. d) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Mauritania. e) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Angola. f) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Sao Tomé e Principe. g) Unnumbered; Annual Report on Multiannual Guidance Programme for the Fishing Fleet at the end of 1995 (MAGP III). h) 7701/96; Common Fisheries Policy: Satellite-Based Vessel Monitoring System. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) to g) HC 51-xxv (1995–96). h) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96). Tuesday 15 October: European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: Unnumbered; The Merger Regulation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 51-xxvi (1995–96).]
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business in the period after the recess, the House will meet for prorogation on Thursday 17 October. The new session will be opened on Wednesday 23 October. As I have already announced, the Budget will be on Tuesday 26 November.

Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that response, including the long-term information that he has given? May I also thank him for finding time for a debate next Wednesday on the code of conduct, as that will be of assistance to the House?
The Leader of the House has announced that there will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday on BSE. Will he confirm that the Government intend that that should be a time-limited debate, and will he tell us whether that limit is an hour and a half? Will he ensure that the Minister opening the debate spells out at the beginning the implications for British farmers—and, in turn, for the European bank—of the failure on the part of the Government to lay the BSE orders on slaughter and compensation?
Many people, both inside and outside this House, will not think that a general debate of an hour and a half is an adequate substitute for the action that was promised. What has happened to the orders, as it was clear that they were to be laid and were to come into effect before the deadline agreed with the EU of 1 August this year?
It is always difficult to ask for extra debates so close to the recess, and I do not intend to do so. But it is right to ask for a clear statement about the decisions that may or may not have been made by the Government on MOD procurement. Can we have a statement on the progress of the £4 billion-worth of important defence procurement orders that are currently being considered by the Government?
There is very real concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House and among people throughout the country that those orders, which the Government have determined are vital to Britain's security, are being repeatedly postponed. Is that not jeopardising tens of thousands of British jobs in the defence interests, and damaging the interests of the armed forces? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to postpone defence orders until next year's public expenditure round? If so, will that not cause great uncertainty for the defence industry and for the services? This is an urgent matter, and Parliament should be told of the Government's intentions.
Finally, there is one issue of concern at the end of the Session that is uniting hon. Members as very few do. That issue is the future of the BBC World Service.
Is the Leader of the House aware of the evidence that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning? That evidence clearly shows not only that the BBC has been at fault because it has not consulted properly on the matter, but that Ministers have allowed the situation to drift.
Does the Leader of the House agree that, although politicians should not interfere in the day-to-day operational decisions of the BBC, the question of the future of the World Service is no mere operational matter? As the Foreign Secretary will meet the chairman of the BBC governors next Wednesday, which may be too late for any statement to the House, will the Leader of the House assure us that Parliament will have an opportunity to have an input into that vital decision, and that no final decision on the future of the World Service will be taken until Parliament has had the chance to have a say, even if that is after the recess?

Mr. Newton: I shall take those points in reverse order. I certainly accept that the future of the World Service, which is held in such high regard not only in this country but around the world, is not simply an operational matter, although operational issues are also involved. For that reason, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the hon. Lady has already mentioned, intends to have discussions with the chairman of the BBC next week, and he has made it clear that he will want to be satisfied that any changes meet our concerns. I shall bring the hon. Lady's comments in the latter part of her question to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
On the subject of defence equipment contracts, a decision will be announced as soon as the assessment of the various bids has been completed. It is hoped that it will be possible to make announcements before too long, but the programmes are large and complex, and a wide range of factors must be considered.
I can confirm that I intend that the debate on the accelerated slaughter programme should last for one and a half hours. The purpose is to enable the Minister to report on the situation, as I think the House would expect, before the recess, but, if the hon. Lady followed the exchanges that took place during Agriculture questions, she will know my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture made it clear that compulsory slaughter will not take place until the House has had an opportunity to debate the order.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words about the debate that I have announced on the draft code of conduct for Members, and, once again, I thank her for the contribution that she has made to the preparation of that code. I also thank her for her kind words about the advance information I have been able to give about key dates for people's diaries.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the confusing and worrying statement by the American authorities yesterday about global warming has created a reaction in some of our constituencies that varies from panic to indifference, would it not be helpful if a Minister could make a statement next week about the exact nature of the problem of global warming and what can be done? That would help us all, because the issue worries many people.

Mr. Newton: My impression is that a wide variety of information is available on the subject, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has put much effort into those matters for a long time. I will bring my hon. Friend's specific query to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The announcement of forward business is welcome. It seems to me that we will nearly complete business before the summer, and perhaps the Leader of the House will soon be able to go a step further and give fixed dates for the start of the parliamentary year, instead of the nonsense of a three-day spillover, followed by a week off, after which we start all over again.
The Leader of the House has announced the general accelerated slaughter debate next Wednesday. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether we will definitely debate the order during the spillover, whether all the aspects of the scheme will be in the order and be debatable—including compensation—and whether the House will be able to make a decision on the matter, so that the ban can be lifted by the Government's self-imposed deadline of the beginning of November?

Mr. Newton: As I said, those matters were pretty extensively covered in Agriculture questions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I followed them from afar, although not very far afar. I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said or to what I said a moment or two ago, but the debate on Wednesday will provide an opportunity for the Minister to set things out more fully.

Sir Roger Sims: What form will the debate on the draft code of conduct take? Will it be on a motion under which the House is expected to approve the code in toto, or will there be an opportunity to table amendments?

Mr. Newton: The debate will take place on a motion inviting the House to approve the code and the guidelines, and, like other such motions, it will be open to amendment. Whether those amendments are selected is a matter for higher powers than me.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that it was Sir Richard Scott's view, in paragraphs D4.40, D4.42, D6.69 and F4.68 of his report, that, if questions from me on the detail of Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes had been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events would have been very different? Therefore, I ask him, why on earth has he put on today's Order Paper "Notice of Motion for an Unopposed Return" in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, "Export of Defence Equipment and Dual Use Goods to Iraq"? Is that about cover for legal challenge, and if so, cover for legal challenge from whom?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman says, the motion was placed on the Order Paper by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and it certainly is connected with the fact that today, what I understand are about 20,000 pages of documentation following on from the Scott committee report are being published in CD-ROM form. I will bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May we have a debate on the planning system as it relates to the accelerated culling programme, and specifically the provision of incinerator plants, so that I can raise with the House the alarm, and despair in many cases, of thousands of my constituents at what are fortunately informal proposals at present to site such an incinerator plant in my constituency at Stourport? Last week, the proposals brought forth a public meeting, attended by 1,000 people, and there will be a further public meeting this weekend, attended by a similar number.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into commenting on a specific local planning controversy, but I will ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Today's amazing news is that, of the 1.5 million people who were robbed by the pensions industry by being missold personal pensions and being persuaded to leave their good-quality occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pension scheme, only 7,000 have been offered any recompense, because of the wicked obstructionist tactics by the pensions industry.
How can anyone propose to privatise more pensions when we know that the story is that private pensions provide very poor value, and that the pensions provided by the state earnings-related pension scheme and national insurance are well run and highly efficient, and provide splendid value?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about personal pensions, which is a wild generalisation, but I have no wish to enter into an altercation with him. The Government do support the Securities and Investments Board's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number—

Mr. Flynn: One and a half million.

Mr. Newton: Relatively small in comparison with the number of people who have personal pensions. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge.
The Government support the SIB's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number of people who stand to lose as a result of the misselling of personal pensions, and we and the regulators are working together to remove the difficulties. We certainly intend that anyone who is found to have lost financially because of misselling will get redress, and that anyone who wants their case reviewed can have it reviewed.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What opportunities will there be for a debate about the management of budgets by local authorities such as East Sussex, so that we can advise them how to live within their more than generous budgets?

Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately think of an opportunity for my hon. Friend, but if she were to appear on Wednesday morning, she might be able to put the point to me then. I shall then see whether I have a better answer than I have now.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House accept that two reasons in particular would justify recalling Parliament during the long summer recess: first, Northern Ireland, where certain developments could clearly take place; and, secondly, public spending cuts? Will he pledge that, in those circumstances, he would seriously consider a request for the House to return?

Mr. Newton: The Government have shown several times in recent years that, if we judge it necessary to recall the House, the House is recalled. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate about possible circumstances now. I find his reference to public expenditure a little odd, because the public expenditure round does not conclude until well after the House returns from the recess.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us whose constituencies have a substantial dairy industry are concerned that next week's debate on the selective cull is too short—just one and a half hours? Many of us want to tell the House how seriously our dairy farmers take the selective cull, and about the damaging impact that it will have on the rural economy for a long time.
On the question raised by the shadow Leader of the House on defence procurement, will my right hon. Friend assure me that those of us who are deeply interested in that matter—Avro International is on the periphery of my constituency—and concerned about the Nimrod 2000 package, will be advised as soon as a decision is made? I see that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is on the Front Bench.

Mr. Newton: I note both my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that his request to the Ministry of Defence has already been heard.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Ministry of Defence contracts, will the Leader of the House tell the Secretary of State for Defence that my constituents are extremely anxious about the replacement of the maritime patrol aircraft and the continuing delays? Will an announcement be made before the recess so that Members of Parliament concerned about that matter may have a chance to respond to those decisions?

Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that it might be appropriate if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement took my place in answering those questions. At any rate, he has clearly heard the questions.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on Wednesday, I shall present a ten-minute Bill called the Union Flag Bill to promote the flying of the Union Jack. May we have time for a debate on devolution, as some of my hon. Friends say that, given Labour's devolution policies, under a Labour Government we would have no British flag left to fly?

Mr. Newton: As I have said before, that would be an excellent subject for debate. I merely note with interest that the Opposition have not considered the subject significant enough to use their Supply day next week to discuss it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I recognise that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot take the place of the Leader of the House, but may I again emphasise the importance of the decision that will be taken on defence procurement? Why have members of the media in this House been running round today saying that British Aerospace has been allocated a contract, and that a statement will be made this afternoon, yet, when hon. Members such as myself contacted the Ministry of Defence, we were told that no such information was available?
Exactly what is going on at the Ministry of Defence, and may we have a statement at least tomorrow to try to resolve that problem? The Leader of the House shares my interest in the defence procurement jobs that are available.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is right on her last point. I have already referred the general thrust of her question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for De fence Procurement. I am not in a position to explain the behaviour of the press.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon about the tragedy of the jumbo jet crash earlier today, does my right hon. Friend think that it is appropriate to announce an opportunity to discuss tourism, particularly the impact that aircraft safety has on tourism, as soon as possible—either during the short time that we are back or immediately thereafter?
The United Kingdom is the world leader in aircraft safety. For example, it has recently made enormous strides in developing blast-resistant and blast-absorbing material for cargo holds. Is my right hon. Friend aware that airports in the United Kingdom lead the world in providing facilities for the scrutiny of passengers' luggage, thereby ensuring their security? Does he think that it is appropriate for us to have a debate linked to aircraft security, bearing in mind how long it is since we last had a debate on tourism?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding hon. Members—and, I hope, a wider audience—of some very important points about this country's record on these matters. I think it is obvious that I would not be in a position to arrange such a debate in what I have announced so far. However, I do not spurn the idea, and I will bear it in mind in the new Session.

Mr. George Foulkes: I represent many of the workers at British Aerospace in Prestwick and I add my name to those who want an oral statement before the House rises.
This has been a fascinating afternoon—I am glad that I have been in the House. Given all the Royal Assents that were announced earlier by Madam Speaker, the fact that the business to the middle of next week has been announced and the fact that the business for the spillover includes no legislation, will the Leader of the House

confirm that the Government have cleared the decks for an October election? Would it not be wise for the Government to say that there will be an early election, which would save Her Majesty and the country the time, the effort and the money of a farce of a Queen's Speech by a lame duck Government that will never be implemented?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the position on the first matter entirely clear several times. So far as the second point is concerned, while it would be improper for me to reveal to the hon. Gentleman—despite his charm—the content of the Queen's Speech, I assure him that it will be a substantial, worthwhile and important programme.

Dr. Robert Spink: Could we have a debate next week to explore the possibility of the non-sector fishing fleet, such as that which operates around the coast of Essex, retaining its track record on decommissioning as the producer organisations currently do? During that debate, we could also explore the possibility of phasing out quota hopping and giving quota exemptions to the smaller boats, particularly those under 8 m. I am delighted that the Government are now well disposed to all these ideas.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. While I cannot be absolutely certain that his points will be relevant, I draw his attention to the debate that will take place on documents relating to the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A on Tuesday 23 July. I remind the House that any hon. Member can take part in the debates if they wish, but they cannot vote, should that be necessary.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Has the Leader of the House had time to look at the Order Book? If so, has he had time to study early-day motion 1192?
[That this House expresses its concern that the forthcoming franchise specification for the West Coast Main Line may fail to provide for the operation of high speed trains; notes that the modernisation and renewal of the West Coast Main Line will only restore the line to 1970s standards and is already costed and included within the base line Core Programme funded through existing and future track access payments; expresses dismay at the current lack of information about the costs, sources of funding and specification for any upgrade to provide for both high speed passenger and piggy back freight operations; further notes that the tender specification for the franchise is due out in October 1996; and, therefore, urges the Chairman of Railtrack, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Secretary of State for Transport to use their individual and collective endeavours to deliver an upgraded, high speed West Coast Main Line capable of providing journey times between London and Liverpool/Manchester of two hours and between London and Glasgow of four hours.]
The early-day motion is signed by 67 hon. Members. It refers to the upgrading of the west coast main line. Will the Leader of the House allow us to debate this issue next Thursday—I see that Thursday is a clear day? This is important, because a decision will be taken before the House reconvenes in October.
We need a high-speed and reliable line on the west coast, which competes with the line on the east coast. If public money is not put into the scheme, and if there is not a commitment from the Government, we will end up with a low-speed, reliable line, and the west coast of Britain will be disadvantaged. We need trains that will travel from Manchester to London in two hours, from Carlisle to London in three hours and from Glasgow to London in a maximum of four hours. Can we have a debate next Thursday?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to extend the sitting to a debate next Thursday on that matter, important though it is—I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised it. Our position is that Railtrack and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising are working closely together in order to determine the way forward, although quite a lot of work is still to be done. The coming months will be very important in developing the upgrade project to the point where the Government can take a decision. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arranging a debate on the selective cull to coincide with the shadow Cabinet elections. I ask him also to arrange for an early debate on early-day motion 1185.
[That this House expresses its full support for all those who are now engaged in re-establishing the right, in a free society, of withdrawing their labour in pursuit of their basic rights against unjust managements, and, in particular those postal workers, London tube drivers, Derbyshire firefighters, Merseyside dockers, Hillingdon hospital cleaners, and others; and calls for solidarity with them by all members of the public who depend on the services which working people provide.]
Then, on a day when a million Londoners are inconvenienced by the tube strike, I could point out that the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) have expressed their support for the strikers and their indifference to the suffering of their constituents.

Mr. Newton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on beginning with a very neat point and going on to make a vigorous one. It is properly made, and I hope that it will be registered outside, as well as inside, the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would it be a good idea for the relevant Minister to make a statement next week on pay for real workers, as opposed to Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers who have lined their pockets in the past seven days? Is it not squalid and hypocritical for hon. Members to talk, within seven days of their massive salary increases, about a pay freeze for the real workers, and about pensioners and others receiving not more than a 3 per cent. increase?
Is it not hypocritical for Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), to condemn those people who are fighting to improve their wages and conditions, having carried out properly constituted ballots in accordance with Tory party law? Is it not high time that the Government showed a little decency and morality and told people, "If MPs and Ministers can get through the pay barrier, the same should apply to workers and to pensioners"?

Mr. Newton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that the Government, through me, recommended a rather different outcome last week: that the House should restrain itself to a 3 per cent. increase. I make the point that the hon. Gentleman appears to be directing his remarks to, among others, about 140 Labour Members.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the remarks he made during a debate on parliamentary procedure last Thursday night. He said that many people in the United Kingdom find Parliament very remote, and that it is valuable to take Parliament and parliamentary Committees and sessions to those people, so that Parliament is more alive and more accessible to them and to their needs. What proposals does he offer the north of England in that respect? If he has such proposals, I assure him that Union Jacks will be flying in Newcastle.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I think that he has paraphrased my remarks rather loosely, but I do not have the text before me. He will be aware that I was speaking about the position of the Grand Committees in relation to Scotland and Wales, and about enabling those Committees to conduct hearings in those countries. I think that that is rather different from the point he makes.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: In view of the risk of increased unemployment, higher taxes, the handing over of many of our remaining powers to Brussels, the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom and of a reduction in law and order, does my right hon. Friend agree that time should be found to debate the dangers of new Labour?

Mr. Newton: We may see some of those indirectly, and no doubt unintentionally, during the Opposition day on Tuesday 23 July. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend might come along and try to expose as many of those dangers as he can.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House to explain that, despite the employment legislation passed by the House, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that democratic ballots should be overturned at the whim of whichever political party happens to be in power at the time?

Mr. Newton: I have arranged for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to be here next Wednesday, and the hon. Lady might like to put that question to her.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his call for a debate on the increase in pay for Members of Parliament and Ministers, because it would be an opportunity to highlight the fact that Ministers voted neither for the vast increase in pay for Members of Parliament, nor for the increase in pay for Ministers, about which he carefully gave the opposite impression? Furthermore, when it came to which Lobbies were occupied, it could be highlighted that those in the Lobby for a large increase in pay were overwhelmingly Labour Members, and those in the Lobby against a large increase in pay were a vast majority of Conservative Members.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Bolsover(Mr. Skinner), not for the first time—he clearly does not mind—put himself in a rather dangerous position in relation to the people behind him.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I think that you have notice from Madam Speaker, which is also a point of curiosity. It refers to the notice of motion for an unopposed return.
It may be within the recollection of the House that Sir Richard Scott, in paragraphs D4.40 to 4.42, D6.69 and F4.68, came to the conclusion that, had detailed questions that I put on Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events in relation to the inquiry on arms exports to Iraq would have been somewhat different.
Therefore, forgive my curiosity in asking about this CD-ROM. Why is it that this notice of motion has appeared on the Order Paper at the very fag end of the Parliament, when it was laid on 15 February? Why was it not under the usual Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions? Doubtless there is some explanation, but the Chair will forgive us being suspicious that this suddenly appears when perhaps Parliament has its mind on rather different matters. Surely it could have appeared much earlier.
Technically, it is not all that difficult to produce a CD-ROM. If there had been any will to make all this available, surely we could have had it by April or May, rather than waiting until July.
Some of us are curious about the substance and content of the CD-ROM. We know that it is the technique of Governments to leave such things to points in time when they are least likely to be looked at. I have no idea what the substance is, but I think that there is justification for being rather suspicious about this extraordinary parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. The notice of motion is in the usual place on the Order Paper. With all his experience, the hon. Gentleman knows that the decision about when such motions appear is a matter for the Government.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, earlier today I applied to Madam Speaker under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on the problems on the London underground, which have inconvenienced a million Londoners and put at risk—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a failed application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it would be a matter for the Government, but the Leader of the House has done us the courtesy of remaining. Perhaps he will explain the procedure and why it was left so late.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman on this point of order. I am not aware that the Leader of the House wishes to reply.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It might be helpful if I explained one factor, which the hon. Gentleman might wish to bear in mind. This is the first time that a proposal to publish in CD-ROM has been made, and it has entailed detailed consideration by various domestic Committees and the House of Commons Commission before the arrangements could be made.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it in order to ask the Leader of the House a further question? Which Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is continuing his point of order—I assume he is—he should address it to me, not to the Leader of the House. The answer is the Administration Committee. I do not think that I can be of any further assistance to the hon. Gentleman on this point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This all appears to have happened by alchemy. Who are these Committees? Which Committees decided that this should happen? This is a very curious matter—it really is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Committees are appointed by the House. In fact, there have also been written answers about it. I can go no further to help the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of the considerable difficulty that quite a number of hon. Members have found in getting to the House this afternoon owing to the extreme traffic congestion outside, which affects not only hon. Members but—more important—our constituents who have to come in to London to work. If we are not allowed to use Standing Order No. 20, what means do we have to raise this important matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is again questioning a failed Standing Order No. 20 application, on which I have ruled. It has not been brought to my notice that any hon. Members who wish to be in the House today have found it impossible to do so.

ESTIMATES DAY

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Class I, Vote 1

British Forces (Bosnia)

[Relevant documents: Fifth report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995–96, House of Commons Paper No. 423, on the British Forces in Bosnia and the Government reply thereto in the Sixth Special Report of Session 1995–96, House of Commons Paper No. 592, and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99—Ministry of Defence (Cm 3202).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £6,228,158,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on: personnel costs, etc of the armed forces and their reserves and cadet forces, etc; personnel costs, etc of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence; movements, certain stores, supplies and services; certain spares and maintenance; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; works services; certain contingent liabilities; certain services provided by other Government departments; some sundry services, subscriptions, grants and other payments, including those abroad, including assistance to foreign and Commonwealth governments for defence-related purposes; and set-up costs, loans and funding to trading funds.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank the House for the privilege of being invited to introduce this debate on British forces in Bosnia. It is certainly timely because of the elections that are due in that country in the middle of September. It is an appropriate subject for an estimates day, as class I, vote 1 is entirely related to defence expenditure, and we shall be asked to vote an extra £6.25 billion from the Consolidated Fund to meet additional defence costs.
I was interested to hear the exchanges during business questions and noted the fact that many of them related to procurement matters. I was also interested to pick up from the Board a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which makes an announcement about LPDs—landing platform docks. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is to make an announcement today about replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, for which the House, and certainly the Select Committee on Defence, has lobbied for many months.
I am told that the contract to build both LPDs is to be placed with GEC Marine at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. No doubt £450 million of what we shall be voting today will be used to assist the MOD's important purchase. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us a little more about the number of jobs that the order will provide, and about when the ships are likely to come into service; but I think that the House will applaud the Government's determination to ensure that our country retains an amphibious capability.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his note telling us that he would be unable to stay until the end of the debate because of pressing engagements of an international nature. It is good to see that he is here for the beginning.
The Defence Committee visited Bosnia between 22 and 24 April this year, just after the D-plus-120 Dayton deadline for withdrawal to military barracks had been largely met. Its report has been published as our fifth report for this Session, and the Government's reply, which the Committee received, has been published as the sixth report.
Last October's ceasefire in Bosnia was described by the United States peace envoy Richard Holbrooke as
not peace, but a big step forward.
The purpose of today's debate is to give the House an opportunity to review progress in the peace process, and in particular the continuing role of British forces in Bosnia, which is described in our report. Since the ceasefire, the Dayton peace plan has been signed by the countries involved, and by the warring parties in Paris on 14 December last year. The agreement maintains a single unitary Bosnian state within internationally recognised borders, with Sarajevo as capital, but divided into two semi-autonomous entities, the Muslim-Croat federation and Republica Srpska—the Serb Republic.
The peace implementation conference held in London last December saw Carl Bildt appointed as high representative to take charge of the civil side of the peace agreement and co-ordination of the civil and military operations. On 20 December—the so-called D-day—authority was transferred from the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, to the NATO implementation force, known as IFOR, and Bosnia was divided into British, United States and French multinational military zones, known as MND—multinational division—north, MND south-west and MND south-east.
I think that it was with relief that our British troops in UNPROFOR took off their blue berets and put on brown helmets. It then became clear to everyone that they meant business. This debate gives the House an opportunity to pay tribute to those forces. Anyone who has visited them—as the Defence Committee has done not just this year, but for the past four years—cannot fail to be impressed by the skill, professionalism and enthusiasm with which individuals and units carry out their tasks. The relative calm in Bosnia this year should not make us forget the real dangers that British forces have faced in the past, and the potential risks that they still face. The House will recall that, since 1992, 24 British soldiers and four aid workers have lost their lives while serving in the Bosnian theatre.
When IFOR took over from UNPROFOR, British troops moved quickly to open up crossing points across the former confrontation lines, and to demonstrate the new mandate under the Dayton agreement. That decisive action set the tone for the completely new style of operations being undertaken by IFOR, with a clear set of military rules and a single politico-military chain of command. It did not have that under the UNPROFOR arrangements.
The Committee was impressed with how soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars had deployed with their Challenger 1 tanks to a disused factory at Bosanski

Petrovac, both to deter anyone tempted to resort to military force and to reassure people seeking to rebuild their homes and lives. That increased military capability is a key feature of IFOR—tread softly, but carry a big stick. A good example of soldiers getting job satisfaction was how the men and women of the Royal Engineers built bridges, restored power supplies and helped local people to clear minefields. They were putting into practice what they were trained to do and could see how the local population benefited.
No tribute to the British forces in Bosnia would be complete without referring to our allies who work alongside them. In April, the Committee visited American, Dutch and Canadian forces. The close co-operation was striking, and the subtle differences between styles of operation and the emphasis placed on creature comforts were clear.
Fifteen NATO countries are involved in the IFOR operation, but there are also 15 countries that do not belong to NATO. The operation in Bosnia has allowed countries such as those that are members of "Partnership for Peace", which have aspirations to join NATO, to demonstrate how well they can operate militarily under the NATO umbrella. Of the non-NATO countries, the Russians have the largest number of troops on the ground. It was quite something to meet a Russian colonel taking orders from an American general. That shows how far we have come since the iron curtain came down in 1989.
We were given one clear example of the risks faced by soldiers serving with IFOR. On the day that we visited the Dutch battalion at Novi Travnik and its medical facilities—which, I regret to say, were at that time, although not now, rather better than ours—a soldier from that unit lost a leg in an explosion in a minefield. Between 3 million and 6 million mines are estimated to have been laid in Bosnia. They will have to be cleared. That is a major job with the funding of which European Union countries can help. It may be too late to speed up the operation this year, but a fully supported effort next spring is badly needed. It was also clear that without the repair work and support of our forces, especially the Royal Engineers, the £332 million humanitarian aid effort could not have been delivered.
What has been the effect of the Bosnian operation on the Army? IFOR shows how British armed forces may operate in future. The UK contingent is tailor-made for the task, drawing together a wide variety of front-line and support units to meet the specific needs of peacekeeping in Bosnia. That means that we must plan for a much wider range of possibilities than in the past and we need the flexible command systems that enable the right combinations of forces to be put together for a particular mission at short notice.
We were struck by the effectiveness of the headquarters in Sarajevo of the so-called ARRC, the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, under the command of a British general, Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker. Its multinational NATO headquarters, based in Germany, is led by Britain and 60 per cent. of its general staff are British. The bulk of them are engaged in communications. Quite apart from the contribution of British forces on the ground, the provision of a significant British element amounting to a high proportion of ARRC's communications facilities is a major part of the UK's participation in IFOR. While such a varied operation, involving a wide range of units, must be good for training,


the disadvantage of having so many soldiers involved in peacekeeping missions is that training for their essential war role of high-intensity combat can suffer.
The Committee has seen no evidence to show that it is wise or practical to train our armed forces solely for peacekeeping roles. Not only have we had to deploy tanks and major artillery to Bosnia to ensure peace enforcement and the protection of our soldiers, but the discipline, organisation and command required to carry out high-intensity operations are still needed for a mission such as IFOR. As the Committee's report notes in its opening paragraph, 10,500 British troops are serving on the ground in Bosnia—more than one tenth of the trained strength of our Army.
The Territorial Army volunteers and reserves made a significant contribution to the British presence in Bosnia. Between 500 and 600 soldiers have filled a variety of posts to bring Regular units up to full operational strength. They include sappers, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel, signallers, military police, logistics personnel, catering and pay staff. We applauded the valuable work done by those volunteers, their employers' tolerance in releasing them and the way in which the Ministry of Defence has adjusted its arrangements for call-up and bounty in the light of experience in Bosnia. The enactment of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 will help still further.
With further commitments overseas and other units preparing for, or recovering from, service in IFOR, more than one third of our Army is committed to operations worldwide. As we saw from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", we now have deployments in more than 33 countries. As a consequence, for many units, tour intervals between deployments have dropped well below the target level of 24 months, training for other missions has suffered and a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom's communications facilities are unavailable for other tasks. Our report concludes that in the wide range of post-cold-war scenarios in which our armed forces might be needed, either a prolonged peacekeeping mission such as IFOR is too large a task, or the Army is too small.
Are there any weaknesses to be identified in the Bosnian operation? While the logistics operation to support British forces in Bosnia is impressive, during its April visit, our Committee identified and reported some weaknesses. As a result, the Government decided to purchase two containerised operating theatres, to fund the provision of bottled water for British troops, to improve access to welfare telephones and to enhance the capability of logistics communications. Those small areas of difficulty highlight a shortage of UK campaign stores.
We saw that the American and Dutch forces had better accommodation and facilities than those of the British soldiers. For those reasons we concluded that, if the UK is to be involved in peacekeeping missions in future, the Ministry of Defence clearly has to acquire and maintain a greater quantity of campaign stores to meet a variety of eventualities. We also suggested that the Ministry of Defence needed to show a faster response to meeting unforeseen needs for supporting soldiers in the field—including access to welfare telephones.
All armies march on their stomachs—ours certainly does. We noted that while American troops were dependent for the first three months of deployment on

their famous MRE—meals ready to eat—which members of the Committee had brought back home and tried, with mixed results, British forces were being served three hot meals a day from the start of the operation. It was clear that other countries serving in Bosnia were envious of the quality of food being supplied to our forces.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I think that other hon. Members want to thank the members of the Committee for the work that they have done. Often, colleagues remain absolutely unpraised for having worked very hard on the House's behalf. Armies may march on their stomachs, but they also march on their feet. To speak anecdotally, I have been told by a constituent that the British footwear is nothing like as good as that of the Americans. Did the Committee see any evidence of that? Should there be an improvement in footwear for such operations?

Mr. Colvin: That is a useful intervention. I can confirm that the Defence Committee has expressed concern about footwear for very many years and has noted in earlier visits to Bosnia that British soldiers were buying other countries' military footwear—often Canadian footwear, which is a good design. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that, as I have been told, something has now been done about footwear. I believe that the Army has at last agreed on a new design of boot. I see that my hon. Friend is itching to get to his feet—no doubt not wearing the new footwear. Perhaps he can enlighten the House.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I endorse what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the hard work of the Select Committee, which has clearly produced a very valuable report. What he said about footwear was certainly true in the past, but it is now very much untrue. The new design of footwear for the Army is, by common consent, as my hon. Friend would agree, by far the best that it has ever been. Indeed—I am sure that he will want to comment on this later—this generation of soldiers are the first who have worn with pleasure on operations the kit with which they have been issued.

Mr. Colvin: I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to confirm what I said. I thank him and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for their kind remarks about the Defence Committee. Not only do we go out to find what is happening on the ground, but I have a feeling that we have a reputation for producing more constructive reports than any other Select Committee.

Sir Russell Johnston: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he said that other contingents were envious of the food served to the British Army. Is that also true of the French contingent?

Mr. Colvin: It was indeed true. We did not have an opportunity to sample the French food. Had we had such an opportunity, we probably would not have been able to take advantage of it, because we had fed so well with the British troops. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
This debate is about estimates, so it is appropriate to ask who pays for the IFOR operation in Bosnia. The latest estimates of the additional cost of British forces serving


with IFOR is £85 million for 1995–96 and £120 million for 1996–97. This is a debate on expenditure, so it is appropriate to ask where that money will come from. In previous years, under UNPROFOR, the additional cost was borne by the Foreign Office and eventually reimbursed by the United Nations. The cost of IFOR is currently being borne by the Ministry of Defence. Although that may make sense in the short term, it could have serious implications for defence spending on other projects.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on 12 June that he would seek reimbursement from the contingency reserve only if the cost of IFOR took defence spending this year over the planned level. That means that if non-IFOR expenditure by the MOD falls short of the planned target for the year—often the result of delayed equipment purchases—the MOD will bear the full cost of IFOR. The result of that must be that permission to carry over any underspending from this year to next year will be affected. Thus, the cost of Bosnia will almost certainly be at the expense of other defence spending—probably on equipment, and as was mentioned in business questions, we are awaiting announcements on a number of major procurement decisions. When we were visiting Washington, we noted that the United States had introduced a contingency element in the Pentagon's budget for such peacekeeping operations, and I believe that the United Kingdom should do the same.
A debate on Bosnia at this time would not be complete without some reference to war criminals. Some have questioned whether the British forces in IFOR should actively seek to arrest them. It is only fair to put on record the difficulty for force commanders of actively seeking out indicted men such as Messrs Karadzic and Mladic. In so far as their whereabouts are known, those two individuals are heavily protected, and any attempt to arrest them would inevitably involve the IFOR soldiers in fighting in which injuries and loss of life might occur. Judging by past experience of arresting Bosnian Serb generals, such an incident could pose a serious threat to stability, which would affect not only the personal safety of the soldiers but the path through the precarious elections now due, through to eventual peace in Bosnia.
We therefore concluded that it would be reasonable in the short term for IFOR to afford a higher priority to maintaining peace in Bosnia than to the active pursuit of war criminals, but that people suspected of such crimes would not be able to hide for ever.

Mr. David Winnick: I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the British forces in IFOR. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept a viewpoint different from the one that he has expressed, which is in the Committee's report? That viewpoint is that there will be and can be no lasting peace in former Yugoslavia unless the war criminals are brought to justice. Bearing in mind the fact that the crimes and atrocities that those people have committed are some of the worst since the Nazis committed their crimes, also in Yugoslavia, as well as elsewhere, should not a different instruction be given, despite all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—an instruction that those notorious war criminals should be brought to justice?

Mr. Colvin: There is every difficulty in doing so at the moment, but the House would wish that those people could be brought to justice before the deadline date for elections on 14 September, because their presence at that time could have a disruptive effect on the elections. From a personal point of view, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that their being brought to justice is essential for the long-term prospects for peace in Bosnia.
What about the future? It is almost certain that, before the House returns after the summer recess, Bosnia is bound to have featured heavily in the news. We should not be deluded by the relative peace so far into thinking that the British forces serving there are safe. In two months' time, the elections are due to be held in Bosnia, and the sheer mechanics of running them will place added strain on the peacekeeping forces and pose greater risks for them.
In a country in which four fifths of the population no longer live in the place where they were registered to vote in 1991, soldiers are bound to become involved in potential clashes as people try to return to areas where they are unwelcome. If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will bring us up to date with the arrangements being set up by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the elections.
In the early stages, it was thought that people would have the right only to go back and vote in their original towns, but it is now proposed that they have an alternative—to vote where they currently live. That will present all sorts of difficulties for the 1 million or so Bosnians now living overseas, and the House would welcome the opportunity to be told about the election arrangements.
Whatever the results of the elections, it is clear that IFOR will not be able to withdraw completely by the end of its mission on 20 December. Judgments will have to be made after the elections on the scale and pace of the reduction in the peacekeeping forces. That makes some successor force almost inevitable. We believe that it should continue to be a NATO-led force and that it should involve the participation—at least on an equal basis—of the principal countries involved in IFOR.
Precipitative withdrawal before a lasting peace was established would be disastrous for Bosnia. That is why, even if our armed forces are overstretched without commitment, they must continue—perhaps on a smaller scale.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend asked who ultimately would meet the cost of the British contribution to IFOR in Bosnia. Will he continue to ask questions about the cost of an on-going presence in Bosnia? Will he join me in speculating as to whether the costs that we have to meet from the defence budget might be holding up other decisions such as that in respect of the requirement by the RAF of a replacement maritime patrol aircraft, which is particularly important to British Aerospace? The project would create thousands of jobs and benefit hundreds of firms in the north-west. Does he feel that current costs may prejudice the taking of such an urgent decision?

Mr. Colvin: No. I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting in yet another plug about a procurement decision of considerable interest to his constituency, which will affect jobs in his region.
However, other factors are far more significant for the defence budget. For example, the rumours—and they may be no more than that—of cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million, which may have exercised the minds of members of the Cabinet who were discussing the matter this morning, are more relevant.
The House should note with some disapproval that only six months after the House debated last year's defence estimates and approved the expenditure for the year, the Government lopped some £600 million off that budget. I very much hope that if and when the House approves this year's defence estimates—immediately after the summer recess—the Government do not then cut the figure still further. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address that if he is called to speak.
In conclusion, the House will want to see the Dayton process bear peaceful fruit. Our forces in Bosnia are second to none in their contribution to that end. They have earned the respect of other nations in IFOR and they deserve and are receiving the wholehearted acclaim and support of the House and the nation.

Dr. David Clark: First, let me associate myself with the concluding remarks by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the excellent report by the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman. On behalf of the Opposition, I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on that Committee.
It is appropriate that the House should debate Bosnia when so many British troops are participating in IFOR and we are just over half way through the Dayton peace process. Indeed, today's debate is particularly relevant at this critical stage in the preparations by various groups in Bosnia for elections there in October. Only last month, I had the opportunity to visit Bosnia for the fifth time to assess whether any changes had been made since the Select Committee published its report.
I join the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside in saying that no visitor to Bosnia can fail to be impressed by the calibre and the professionalism of our forces. They are simply world class and their value as peacekeepers and enforcers is now universally recognised. I refer not only to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force but to the men and women of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary who take our stores out to Bosnia and who are now stationed in Split harbour. They are often forgotten and they deserve our thanks.
It was also impressive to see the NATO integrated command structures, which have been honed and practised for almost 50 years, working so effectively and harmoniously. In the south-west region, the Canadian and Dutch troops operating under the command of a British general—General Mike Jackson—could be British in every military sense, such is their integration and their understanding of the command and control structure. Even the troops of non-NATO countries, such as the Czechs—who aspire to NATO membership—and the Malaysians, have no difficulty in adapting to the NATO structure. That bodes well for the future. It is certainly encouraging that our taxpayers' money has not been

wasted—deterring aggression from the east in the past and now attempting to bring peace to various parts of the world.
I was also impressed by the change in rules. Those of us who saw the operation of British troops under UNPROFOR were at times unhappy. There was a feeling that they did not have the necessary rules of engagement or equipment, but that has now changed. The more robust rules of engagement, backed up by the larger numbers, and the different mission objective, supported by a heavier deployment of weaponry, have meant that the IFOR operation has been much more effective in its peace enforcing role.
To put it bluntly, the presence of a large, imposing Challenger tank sitting on the roadside sends a significant message, especially to people who have become almost blasé about the use and presence of force. They understand force; unfortunately, they have had to live with it for four years—but the projection of power remains important. That is one lesson that we have all learnt from our experiences in Bosnia.
The Select Committee referred to a number of shortcomings, especially in the provision of certain basic utilities such as water, welfare facilities such as telephone provision and the medical facilities available to our troops. I am pleased to report that when I was in Bosnia just last month, I thought that considerable improvements had been made. Obviously, there are still difficulties, and I shall return to them in a moment.
At the main camp at Banja Luka there are problems with the water supply, but it must be appreciated that the water supply also serves the civilian communities. At times of peak demand, problems are created by an extra 5,000 people using that water. Our troops have said quite rightly that, if there is any difficulty in supplying both the hospital and the troops, priority will go to the civilian hospital. That is right and we all understand it. We appreciate that there are problems and our soldiers accept that.
Having said that, I believe that there is one aspect on which there is a slight difference between the two sides of the House although, by and large, we have a consensual approach to the operation in Bosnia. The Government's "Front Line first" policy is one of the reasons why we are having difficulty in supplying basic utensils in Bosnia. The supplies that are needed for a small, static war are very different from those required for a large, mobile war. If Ministers read the historical records and reports on the subject at the turn of the century by Sir Charles Calwell, they will find that that problem was understood then. Troops based in the same position—even in a small war—for perhaps 12 months will obviously require more support and supplies than troops moving on every two weeks and becoming used to a more challenging life. I hope that Ministers will take that lesson on board.
Another factor alluded to by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and by the Select Committee was overstretch, and there is no doubt that that exists. If one keeps going back to Bosnia, one cannot help but see the same regiments and detachments, and that is a matter of concern. That overstretch has been manifested in two ways. First, there are worries about the reserves, a large number of whom are doing vital work. By and large, they are enjoying their work and they feel proud of what they are doing. I gather that there are about 600 reserves with our forces in Bosnia—a lot of troops.
The reserves were still unconvinced that the Reserve Forces Act 1996 will guarantee that a job is available to them when they return to civilian life. I hope that their fears are wrong and that the Act will provide that guarantee. I hope that Ministers will continue to monitor the matter, which has been raised with me time and again. I will be surprised if members of the Select Committee have not heard about it as well.
The second manifestation of overstretch, as outlined in the report, was that certain personnel—especially specialised personnel—were being sent back to Bosnia repeatedly. I met a reservist—a linguist—who had been back to Bosnia every six months for four years, and heavy demands are being made on other specialised personnel. If a person is being sent back to Bosnia regularly, it gives him insufficient time for training and recuperation, Or time with his family. That is vital for the morale of the forces.
For example, there appears to be a particular problem with the availability of armed recce regiments, such as the Light Dragoons, whom I met when I visited Bosnia previously. It has been suggested to me—I recognise the delicacy of the situation—that only two regiments with an armoured recce capability can be deployed to Bosnia. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will look at the matter. I am not asking for a reply this afternoon, but the situation needs to be monitored. The Royal Engineers are suffering similar problems, and the Select Committee singled out them and the Royal Signals as corps that are beginning to find that they are being sent back time and again. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will monitor that.
As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the military objectives of Dayton have been concluded—largely successfully. We are now into the next stage of trying to rebuild civilian society, and that is much more difficult. We want to resettle areas and get it across to people that peace offers a better life than war. We have had to change some of our military thinking, and we have reintroduced psychological operations. I have no problem with that, but it was a form of operation that the British Army lost its ability to conduct after Malaysia. It needs to be done, as we must get the message across to the civilian population.
What I find encouraging about the operation in Bosnia is the liaison between G5, the military-civilian role of the Army, and the Overseas Development Administration as they try to bring normality back to civilian life and the infrastructure. Our troops are doing a brilliant job in that respect, and they are getting a great deal of satisfaction from helping people to get their lives back to normal. I talked to people where the forces had brought together those who laid mines on either side and had worked with them to de-mine their own minefields. That is a positive long-term activity.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the efforts to reconnect water and electricity supplies, and the repairing of roads and the rebuilding of bridges—all of which are vital. Nevertheless, the small things that make civilian life worth while are also important. In this field, first-class arrangements are being developed in Bosnia between the ODA and the military.
I must pay tribute to the skilled work of the ODA's permanent representative, Dr. Gilbert Greenall, and I shall refer to the system that is so important to the military, to the ODA and to the people who benefit from it. The ODA

and the forces have arrived at a system that is simple and speedy in delivery. If Army personnel come across a particular problem, they can make an approach to Dr. Greenall, who will visit the site and make an assessment of the problem. If the ODA's criteria are met, he has the facility to release money immediately to tackle the problem and action can be achieved in weeks, if not days. What might cost £20,000 in two months' time can be done for £2,000 sooner.
For example, I was shown the town of Mrkonjic Grad—I know Select Committee members visited it. In the town, a hospital was completely gutted and had had all its facilities removed. It is now being put back into civilian use. The Croats had driven out the Serbs—not a single Serb was in the town—but, under Dayton, it was given back to the Serb community, and 10,000 Serbs moved back. When they did so, they found that the Croat troops had looted the town and chopped everything up.
As the Serbs moved back, a public health risk was created because refuse was piling up and no facilities were available to deal with it. When the local mayor was approached by the Army and asked why they did not do something about it, he said that the refuse wagon needed to collect the refuse had had its tyres shot out and its battery removed. Our Army was able to alert the ODA, and Dr. Greenall was able to visit the area. Within days, money was given for tyres and a battery and the refuse wagon was on the road again. The Serbs were able to begin to look after their own affairs. That is the sort of urgent action that I thought was good not only for the recipients, but for our soldiers. They were seen as facilitators in trying to restore a civilian way of life.
I hope that the major indicted war criminals—Karadzic and Mladic—will be apprehended soon. It is not a question of if they will be apprehended but when, and I should have thought it would be in his own best interests for Karadzic to hand himself over to the authorities. That may sound strange, but it is only a matter of time before he is apprehended. He would do himself the world of good if he gave himself up.
I shall conclude by giving the same message as the Chairman of the Select Committee. So far, this mission has been a success, but the peace is fragile. Indeed, it may become more fragile in the light of the news that the United States has given authority to start training Bosnian Government troops and Croatian troops. If we walk away in December, there is every chance that the war will begin again. There must be some form of IFOR 2. I hope that our United States allies will stay in Bosnia. We shall use our best endeavours, as will the Government, to persuade the Americans that they must remain.
In the worst scenario of the Americans refusing to stay, I hope that, as long as the European nations of NATO feel that they should stay, our Government will contribute to the European NATO force. I accept that the current strength of the force cannot be maintained—the divisional-size force of 10,500 is too many—but we might be able to find sufficient troops for a brigade-size force of 7,000. I hope that we shall participate.
We cannot abrogate our responsibility. Too much blood has been shed. If we walk away in December, all that blood will have been shed in vain. We shall have to go the extra 12 months for peace. I am delighted that that point is supported by paragraph 68 of the Select Committee report. I endorse that part of the report and


almost every recommendation made in it. Once again, I thank all members of the Select Committee for such an excellent job of work.

Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon): I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I thank hon. Members who said that we did a splendid job, which was in no small part due to the leadership and wisdom of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. I am very grateful to him.
We visited Bosnia in April. It is a rapidly moving situation in a volatile part of the world. What we saw in April does not apply now. It was clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that some of the problems about which I was worried—humanitarian relief and the inflow of civilian money—are being tackled, but others remain. We were concerned because, although our forces had assisted the civilian populations, there was no evidence that international money was getting to where it was needed—out in the towns and villages. We were concerned, for instance, that there was no planting in the countryside because there were no tractors—the retreating sides had taken them. We were concerned that there would be no harvest. I am unaware of the current position, but I hope that serious work has been done to alleviate that problem.
We were concerned that, despite the fact that we had the best-fed troops in the field from day one—that is always so, and if anyone has tried "meals ready to eat" they will know why there are raids on our canteens whenever the Americans, French or anybody else can get near them—there were shortfalls. We found, for example, that because of logistics delays, equipment had been lying around for ages awaiting parts. Perfectly good bathroom and toilet facilities had been lying around for months because the connecting pipes had not been delivered. The computer and communications system to back up the logistics was not working, and if anything was needed somebody had to jump in the car and drive 40 miles across the mountains to drop a note in.
I pay the highest tribute to the men and women serving not only in the British Army, but in all the armies participating in IFOR. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned the fact that, when we went to see the Americans in Tuzla, there were a couple of Russian colonels in the American battle headquarters, and we were seen off by a Russian general under their command.
We asked our people, "What are the Czechs like?" They replied,"They are super, smashing, professional people to work with who are doing a great job and working extremely hard at it." I cannot praise them too highly.
Where we do have a problem is with the Dayton accord itself. I think that it was too ambitious. The out date of December is not achievable. Our military have achieved all the military tasks, but other tasks have not been met. The money for reconstruction work was not finding its way there, but I am glad that that is no longer true. There is still a long way to go.
The people in Bosnia—the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats—are lovely people. I remember holidaying there in the balmy days of my

youth and meeting the people. The trouble is that they love us but hate each other. That will not change overnight. We know that from the history of the Balkans and, tragically, from our history in Ireland too. We must be prepared for that. Having spent the time, money, effort and lives that we have thus far, we should be prepared to spend a little more time to try to achieve some stability, because I do not believe that the elections will bring stability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about war criminals. Our report was written in April, but the warrants were issued only last week. The context in which we wrote our report has changed dramatically. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields: if Karadzic and Mladic thought about it, they would walk across the lines now and say, "We give up." They will be caught, because they cannot hide for ever, and the crimes on which they have been indicted cannot be forgiven—ever. They must face up to the fact that they will be caught and punished, and correctly so.
I have witnessed things that will live with me for the rest of my life, such as the fact that a thug can walk into someone's home and say, "Get out by the morning or you are dead, and if you are not out by the morning we will burn the house down around you." On one visit, we saw body bags being taken out of a house—the horror of man's inhumanity to man. They are the same people. The only difference between the Muslims, Serbs and Croats is their history. Ethnically, they are the same people.
It is worrying that people hark back to the evils of the battle of Kosovo in, I believe, the 12th century. The Serbs have never achieved such greatness since, and they look forward to the future. Another worrying portent for the elections is that, unfortunately, the moderate opinions that are widespread in all the communities in Bosnia are not represented by the people who appear to want to stand as candidates.
We must try to reconstruct the country, we must try to keep it peaceful and we must do our best to help the people's future. British forces, whether they were in the Bosnian Serb sector, the Bosnian Croat sector or the Bosnian Muslim sector, were regarded as the guarantors of the safety of the people living in that sector. They were not playing favourites. That is true of all the units in all the sectors.
We must make the commitment that people will be given another chance to rebuild and to survive. We know that the ultimate objective of the leaders in Republica Srpska is to unite with Serbia to form greater Serbia. We know that the Croatian Bosnians and the Muslim Bosnians have their own problems. We know that the potential for fighting and division continues. We know that hunger and deprivation exist.
Our interpreters were local people. Some of the things that they did were amazing. One would find a local Croatian girl, employed as an interpreter, working in a Serbian area, voluntarily teaching two hours a day in the Serbian school because there was no schoolteacher in the village. Things like that are not talked about. We must support and develop them, but we can do so only if we make the commitment to the people not to walk out of there in December and leave them to their own devices.
The trouble is that it is an American presidential election year, and domestic American politics are intruding. It is essential for the future of IFOR that it is


international and that any continued force has an American ground force element. It would not be credible internationally if it did not, and it would not be right if we did not raise that matter unequivocally in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is one of the most technically competent Members of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned land mines. Those of us who heard Sir Hugh Beach of the all-party land mines group know the extent of the problem of identifying and doing something about land mines. Does my hon. Friend have any solution?

Mr. McWilliam: That is an important, thorny problem.
We were told that some youngsters in Sarajevo had learnt how to dig up anti-personnel mines and that they throw them in the river so that they go off there, and that someone else down-river catches the fish killed by the explosion. That is a stupid, highly dangerous thing to do.
Because of the construction of the forces that were operating—working on the Warsaw pact methods of organisation when there were hostilities—the average infantryman would wander out with 12 anti-personnel mines strapped around his body, instructed to lay them out as a defensive perimeter. When he withdrew, he was supposed to dig them out and come back. Unfortunately, what has happened does not accord with the Geneva convention, because there was, and is, no accurate map of the minefields. Some of such records as exist are in Split, and the Croatian Government there deny their existence.
The solution is to spend money training former Yugoslav army sappers of whatever persuasion to clear mines. We cannot do it; we do not have enough sappers to do that highly skilled job. The mines are extremely difficult to clear. The anti-personnel mines are plastic. The only metal in them is the size of an ordinary pin, so no normal detection method works. The Americans are using remote-controlled mine clearance vehicles, but they do not get them all either. The mines do terrible damage, especially to children. I would not willingly walk off a metalled road anywhere in that country at the moment; it is that unsafe.
A huge international effort is needed to clear the mines. The best people to do the work are the people who laid them, but they need training. We need to spend money on the manpower to train them.
Bosnia is a beautiful country, and always was. It happens to be at the crossroads of conflicting civilisations, and it has been for a long time. By and large, however, the Bosnians got on pretty well until Germany forced recognition of Croatia far earlier than any country in that area should have been recognised. That is what blew it up. We all know that. It is too late now. There is no point in crying over spilt milk, but we are responsible in that we acquiesced in that decision. We must take that responsibility by ensuring that we make the commitment to continue peacekeeping in Bosnia.
I wish to conclude by quoting paragraph 80 of the Select Committee report.
We conclude that in the wide range of post-Cold War scenarios in which the armed forces might be needed, either a prolonged peace-keeping mission like IFOR is too large a task or the Army is too small.

We ignore that conclusion at our peril. It is either too large a task or the Army is too small. The extent of the overstretch that our forces feel is not fair or right, and it must be stopped.

Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on the informed and balanced way in which he introduced the debate, and on the work that he does in the Defence Committee. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who would usually do this sort of thing, I warmly welcome from this Bench the decision to go ahead with replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, an announcement about which the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside spoke at the start of his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman did not speak exclusively about the role that our troops play in Bosnia. I shall speak more widely later, but before doing so I shall repeat what all hon. Members who have so far spoken have said about the excellence of the standards that British troops are maintaining, and the very effective way in which troops from different countries are combining and working with one another under the NATO umbrella. That is a matter for congratulation and pleasure.
Many hon. Members have spoken about Dayton, because it represents the background to what our troops may or may not be called on to do in future. Dayton stopped the guns firing. That was a very good thing, but it has other not so desirable aspects.
I vividly remember a special meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe immediately after David—now Lord—Owen had been appointed to operate on behalf of the European Community. He had been in Croatia and witnessed one of the occasions when refugees were driven by the Serbs across into Croatia. Many of them were shot in the process. He had been extremely moved by the experience, and he made a long and passionate speech lasting nearly an hour and a half, much of which was unscripted—to the horror of his officials. He said that all the refugees must return to their homeland, that we on the continent of Europe must never allow such events to be perpetrated and that we would not rest until the last refugee was rehoused in his own home. Some of us were wondering who would achieve that.
The Dayton accord has authorised ethnic cleansing and separation with what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside described, technically correctly but in reality not so near the truth, as a "unitary state". I fear that few, if any, refugees have returned, and I do not see them returning in the near future. Current events in Herzegovina, Croatia and Republica Srpska mean that the separation will last for a long time.
Everybody has said, rightly, that IFOR has been much more effective than UNPROFOR. That is simply because its mandate is much more effective, and that must be maintained. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats said in an article that he wrote shortly after a recent visit to Bosnia, the problem with UNPROFOR was that it had no choice between using a light tank and having a strategic air strike. There was no graded capacity for response. That is different in IFOR's case, and it is desirable to sustain that difference.
Many hon. Members have referred to war criminals. I agree that Karadzic and Mladic should come to justice, but it is not easy, and to pretend otherwise is silly. Who appointed Mladic? Who sustained Karadzic during the period of ethnic cleansing? The answer is President Slobodan Milosevic. So is not he a war criminal in the same way? The disagreement, which has been publicly aired, between the views of Carl Bildt and the Americans about what we should do now shows the practical difficulties and uncertainty about, first, the effect on the Serbs of seizing those two gentlemen and, secondly, the effect on the Muslims of doing nothing. One is caught between those two positions.
We must remember that, if Karadzic and Mladic are taken to The Hague, the people they will leave behind in charge will hold exactly the same views as them. I remember meeting Biljana Plavsic, the lady who has already practically replaced Karadzic officially. I sat in a tree while, 200 yds away, a mass grave of Serbs who had been killed by the Croats was dug up. I knew that she was a tough lady but on that occasion I felt that she was vulnerable. She told me how various members of her family had been killed. She does not disagree with Karadzic about anything and we must face the fact that there are deep divisions in the community which will not go away for a long time.
Several hon. Members have raised the issue of how long IFOR will stay. My hon. Friends and I find it unthinkable that IFOR should withdraw. As the Minister knows, the French Foreign Minister has already suggested extending IFOR's stay for at least two years. We should support that suggestion. As the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said, it was never realistic to think that matters could be resolved in a year.
At the beginning of September last year, I was in the Pentagon on a Western European Union visit. We heard a presentation by a general about Bosnia and what the Americans intended to do. The President had said that it would all be over by December and I said, "Who are you kidding? That is not possible. Don't tell me that you will pull out just when, I hope, you are beginning to make a mark on stability in the region." The poor general was tied by official White House policy, but I could see that he was extremely unhappy because it was never realistic to think that it would all be finished in a year. Despite the fact that the matter is, as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, ensnared in American presidential election politics, I do not think that the Americans will withdraw, and I am sure that we will lend all our efforts to ensuring that they stay.
There are two arguments about staying. The first is that no announcement should be made until after 14 September. The second is that, according to the advice of the military, for planning reasons, the beginning of September is effectively the latest that we can announce what we intend to do. Staying would also have a positive effect on the election process.
Although most people recognise that there is official uncertainty, Governments have basically accepted that IFOR will continue, although it has not been officially announced. Staying would have a positive effect on the elections of 14 September, while the opposite would encourage—if they need encouragement—the nationalists, who will dominate the elections in any event.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the extremely good work done by the Overseas Development Agency in conjunction with the Army. I agree that it has done some excellent work and deserves great praise for it. I have not been to Bosnia recently, but I expect to be a Council of Europe monitor at the elections. Most people who have been there recently believe that one of the notable failures arising out of Dayton is the failure to send a police force to Bosnia.
When my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats was there recently, military people told him that having some British policemen there might be as valuable as having troops—in certain circumstances, even more valuable. As the United Kingdom has yet to send even one policeman to Bosnia, will the Minister way whether we are trying to do something about that? It would be a valuable contribution to controlling lawlessness, which is a deep and continuing problem in large areas on both sides of Bosnia.
As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the basic message to emerge from the debate is that we are proud of the work that our armed forces are doing in Bosnia. It is of great value. Although it costs a certain amount, a renewal of fighting would cost even more. That is why I repeat my basic point: we should decide now, in conjunction with our allies, that IFOR will continue for at least two years.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am not a member of the Defence Committee, but I have read the report and I admire its technical expertise. I have a great interest in the subject of today's debate. I welcomed the Defence Committee's conclusion about the future of IFOR and whether there should be a follow-on force. I believe that there will be a follow-on force. It has been raised as an open question, but I think that the decision makers have already made up their minds—and that they had probably made up their minds at the outset of the operation. The timing of the decision is no coincidence: it will come shortly after the United States presidential election. Once the election is out of the way, a follow-on force to IFOR will be announced.
I believe that whether there will be a follow-on force is not the real question—the real question is what the follow-on force will do and whether it will continue to work on what is essentially a minimal mandate. If that continues, it could lead it to acquiesce in what will be the creation of three apartheid statelets on the European mainland. Are we going to grasp the nettle and look again at the force's mandate and try to match the military force of IFOR with the political will to make a reality of the Dayton principles?
I have seen the British forces at work on a number of visits to Bosnia over the past few years, both as a member of UNPROFOR and as a member of IFOR. I went to Banja Luka during the Whitsun recess and I had a useful discussion with the British forces commander, General Mike Jackson. My impression of the soldiers has always been the same, whether in UNPROFOR or IFOR: they are extremely keen about their task, highly motivated and well informed, and extremely capable and good at the job that they are asked to do. They are succeeding in accomplishing their present mission with the same brilliance that they have displayed on other occasions.
However, I believe that they are capable of doing a lot more—they need the right kind of political direction and the right kind of political will behind them.
Hon. Members have mentioned the shortcomings of UNPROFOR, which preceded IFOR. We have to look hard at what went wrong with UNPROFOR because of the damage that was done to the reputation of the United Nations. We must not let the credibility of NATO be damaged in the same way by a future failure of the IFOR mission. I believe that if we do not look again at IFOR's mandate, the credibility of NATO will be damaged in the long term.
It is helpful to look back at the failure of UNPROFOR, which culminated just over a year ago in the fall of Srebrenica to the Serb ultra-nationalist forces. However, we now know that they were not purely Serb forces and that tanks from the Yugoslav army participated in that onslaught. Srebrenica was a United Nations safe area and it was defended by European soldiers—by Dutch soldiers—but they were incapable of stopping the onslaught, and we now know the consequences as they have been recently recorded in gruesome detail at the international tribunal in The Hague.
What could have been done to prevent Srebrenica and the other massacres in the preceding three or four years? How could we have rescued UNPROFOR from its predicament at an earlier stage? The answer was given by General Rupert Smith in August 1995, when he co-ordinated air and artillery attacks on the Bosnian Serb army. Contrary to everything that we have been told about the dangers of another Vietnam, the Bosnian Serb army was routed at the first serious use of force against it. If I had any doubts about that, they were dispelled when I visited Banja Luka earlier this year and I was told by the local Serbs how convinced and frightened they were at the time that their town was about to fall to Croatian and Bosnian forces.
Banja Luka is the largest town in the Bosnian Serb territory—without it, there could have been no real credible Bosnian Serb state. In other words, we were within a week of seeing the collapse of the Bosnian Serb regime and the complete defeat of General Mladic and of Radovan Karadzic. At the last minute, the offensive was halted—thanks, many believe, to British diplomatic intervention which persuaded the Americans to back off and which persuaded the Croatian and the Bosnian Governments to back off as well. It seems that British diplomacy could not save Srebrenica but it managed to save Banja Luka.
In the course of saving Banja Luka, we saved Mladic and Karadzic to another day—and the consequences of that plague us to this day in the form of an ultra-nationalist regime still in power in the Serb entity and Mladic and Karadzic still in control of the levers of power. That is the real crisis, the real problem, facing British soldiers now based in Banja Luka and it is a direct consequence of the shortcomings and failures of a year ago.
We have heard a lot of warnings about the dangers of mission creep in Bosnia, but I believe that mission erosion is much more dangerous: by failing to take on the continuing defiance of the ultra-nationalists, the credibility of the IFOR mission—and therefore the credibility of IFOR and, by extension, NATO—is being steadily undermined and eroded. Mission erosion has

happened in the Serb suburbs of Sarajevo, where the Serbs were allowed to burn and loot with impunity before the handover to the Bosnian Government. That is still happening in the same suburbs today, with the few Serbs who bravely decided to remain being hounded out by thugs and Muslim nationalists because they are not getting protection from the international police task force, which is afraid to patrol at night because IFOR will not protect such patrols. That is mission erosion.
Mission erosion happened in Mostar when the European Union capitulated to threats and intimidation by the criminal gangs who control west Mostar. I remind hon. Members that gangs fired 18 shots at the car of the European Union administrator. The response of the European Union was to capitulate and to agree to the demands to shrink the main central district of Mostar. That is mission erosion—that is credibility erosion.

Sir Russell Johnston: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman, he should give a little more credit to the brave efforts of Hans Koschnik, the German European Community administrator, who did his utmost to try to bring the two communities together and only gave up in despair.

Mr. Macdonald: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said. My dismay is that all this good work was ultimately let down and undermined by the failure of European Union Governments to back the solution that he had put his name to, and for which he literally risked his life.
Mission erosion is occurring in the Serb-controlled territories where Muslims continue to be cleansed from their homes. Other refugees are prevented by force from visiting the graves of their relatives. Civilian crowds supposedly gather to prevent the visits from occurring, but those crowds comprise policemen who change into civilian clothes, grab clubs and return to threaten the refugees. Mission erosion is already occurring in that indicted war criminals—who according to the Dayton agreement should not hold appointed or elected offices—remain in charge of the Government and army of the Serb entity.
Although great efforts have been made to secure a ceasefire in Bosnia, I am afraid that the Dayton agreement will become a dead letter. I emphasise that that is the fault not of the British forces or of IFOR, but of the European Governments and of the Americans, who lack the political will to back those forces in Bosnia which wish to build a multi-ethnic democratic society. We must not forget that 200,000 Serbs still live in Bosnian federation territory—controlled by what some people refer to as the Muslim Government. And tens of thousands of Serb refugees from the Krajina have signed petitions in Belgrade seeking to be allowed back to the Krajina, even if it means living under the Croatian Government. People want to return to their homes: the pull of that region is very strong.
IFOR has managed to create a stable ceasefire zone in Bosnia, but that success is temporary. The space that has been created must be filled with democratic and multi-ethnic values and principles or in time it will be reclaimed by the forces of ultra-nationalism and ethnic cleansing. I believe that it is impossible simply to maintain the status quo and to allow a second force, IFOR 2, to assume the role that IFOR has played in the past few months. We either move forward into mission expansion or we go backwards into mission erosion.
Moving forward means three things. First, it means the arrest of Karadzic, Mladic and the other ethnic cleansing ringleaders. I acknowledge the difficulties associated with that, but if 60,000 NATO troops cannot arrest them, who will? Moreover, the outgoing commander-in-chief of the NATO forces, Admiral Leighton Smith, has said that he is willing to perform the task if he is directed to do so.
Secondly, if we are to move forward, elections in the Serb and the Croat entities must be suspended until they are guaranteed to be free and fair. There is no point in holding fraudulent elections. I believe that we should support the views of Ambassador Frowick regarding the need to prevent the Serb Democratic party from participating in the elections until we get rid of Radovan Karadzic.
Thirdly, we must see the gradual, but systematic and progressive, return of those refugees who wish to go back to their villages and towns. That must occur under the protection of IFOR, and then of IFOR 2. I believe that IFOR 2 will find that it must either help those refugees to return and provide protection for them, or prevent them from returning. That is the choice that it will face.
Finally, moving forward into mission expansion means that there must be the political will and resolve to enforce the Dayton agreement, which has been sadly lacking so far.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I congratulate the Liaison Committee on its choice of subject for today's debate. I have listened with interest to the contributions from all sides, and I am proud to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous achievements of the British service men and women who have served with such distinction in support of the IFOR operation, and previously with UNPROFOR.
In the course of the debate, my hon Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and other hon. Members have referred to the Defence Committee's recent report on its visit to Bosnia. I shall respond to as many points as I can. I welcomed the Committee's visit, and I echo the comments about the high quality of its work. Visits by Ministers and Members of Parliament help to show our forces that they are very much in our minds, and that their excellent work is receiving the attention and acknowledgement that it deserves.
But let me first say a few words about the major part played by British forces in the highly successful IFOR operation, which has already achieved all the key military objectives in the Dayton peace agreement. The United Kingdom contribution to IFOR is a substantial one: initially, we provided some 11,500 troops on the ground, with a further 3,000 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel offshore and in Italy. Subsequent adjustments to NATO's naval and air force levels, together with reductions in initial surge deployments and good housekeeping, reduced those totals to 10,500 and 1,000 respectively.
I can announce today that, following further good housekeeping measures and rationalisation of assets, made possible by the success of the operation and the benign

environment in theatre, we have been able to reduce the numbers further. Our ground force contribution currently stands at around 9,200. Following the lifting of the arms embargo and the suspension of Operation Sharpguard, the RN and RAF contribution was reduced to some 500. The United Kingdom remains the second largest contributor after the United States.
The initial deployment of the United Kingdom contingent was, in itself, a notable success. Between 4 December and 18 January, some 6,600 personnel were transported to theatre, all by RAF aircraft. Their equipment went by sea. The decision not to move by land was vindicated by the significant delays experienced by other nations which chose that option.
In our case, despite difficult weather conditions at Split airport, the deployment was completed 24 hours ahead of schedule. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is a great credit to the movements staffs of all three services. Their hard work, and that of other support staffs, often goes unsung—indeed unnoticed—by the media who tend to concentrate on eye-catching stories on the ground in Bosnia. However, without them, the operation would not have been possible, let alone successful.
The success of our deployment, which owed so much to the splendid work of Lieutenant General Sir Rupert Smith and Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker—both of whom have been mentioned—contributed greatly to the remarkably efficient transfer of authority from UNPROFOR to IFOR. That was essential to ensuring that the parties respected the fragile ceasefire and got on with meeting their obligations under the peace agreement.
Most British personnel are in multinational division south-west. This British-led division has successfully presided over the largest transfer of land—the so-called anvil—under the peace agreement. From the very start of the IFOR operation, with commendable enterprise and resolve, British Army units seized the initiative and moved deep into Bosnian Serb territory. They thereby established themselves throughout their area of responsibility on both sides of the former confrontation line, in order to show presence and to secure IFOR's freedom of movement.
The divisional HQ has subsequently transferred to Banja Luka, in Republica Srpska, to reinforce IFOR's coverage of Bosnia as a whole and further stabilise the situation on the ground. It is the only IFOR divisional HQ in Bosnian Serb territory.
Building on the successful approach of our UNPROFOR contingents before them, British forces are performing splendid work at the local level throughout their area of responsibility. Besides implementing the peace agreement, ensuring freedom of movement, and providing general security, they are building up civilian confidence on all sides, helping to solve local problems and undertaking many local projects.
UK troops are also working in close co-operation with the Overseas Development Administration in a most highly praised initiative which is helping to restore normal life for the local people. Nearly 400 projects have been identified under this £4.5 million programme—more than 50 projects have already been completed. British engineers are helping to rebuild schools, hospitals, kindergartens, bridges and roads. They are also helping to restore essential services such as electricity and water.
Let me give the House just three examples. In towns such as Mrkonjic Grad, Sipovo and Banja Luka, British engineers are currently working to restore some 15 schools, the Neames bridge is being rebuilt, and, across the so-called anvil area, the scene of terrible destruction, engineers are working to restore the electricity supplies. That excellent work, which does not attract the applause it deserves, is giving the local people hope and confidence for the future.
The overall land operation is being most ably led by HQ ARRC, which is largely British-manned, and commanded by Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker. The HQ's performance, in its first operation, is a source of great satisfaction to the UK and to NATO allies working alongside us.
The House will be heartened to know that our forces are demonstrating the virtues of initiative, determination and discipline that are the hallmark of the British armed forces and which have made them admired and respected around the world. They—and the country at large—can be justifiably proud of their achievements. Only last week, the IFOR commander, Admiral Smith, was fulsome in his praise of HQ ARRC, of General Walker, and of the performance of British forces as a whole.
I turn now to the Committee's recent report, introduced so knowledgeably today by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, and to some of the references made to it in the course of our debate.
I was grateful for the report's own acknowledgement of the contribution made by UK forces to the success of IFOR. The Committee recognised that they are
continuing to do an excellent job.
The Committee also paid tribute to our forces' professionalism, and adaptability in carrying out their "difficult task". I fully concur with that judgment.
The report does, however, voice a number of concerns over living conditions for our troops in theatre and the logistics support for the operation. Some of these concerns have been raised in the course of today's debate. I propose to address these points, in which I accept that there is some substance, but it is important to set this in the right context.
It is fundamental that operational factors must be taken into account in establishing priorities in the transport of equipment and stores to theatre. At the outset of the IFOR operation, the requirement quickly to deploy combat-capable troops to help secure the ceasefire in Bosnia outweighed the need for tactical base infrastructure. But as the mission has developed, it has been possible to devote greater priority to campaign facilities.
Any comparison in that respect with UNPROFOR must recognise that UNPROFOR had some three years to set in place its accommodation arrangements. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, UK forces needed to move quickly into Bosnian Serb territory at the outset of the IFOR operation, in order to show presence on both sides of the former confrontation line. UNPROFOR had not previously operated in Serb-held territory. There was accordingly no existing base infrastructure to occupy. Furthermore, the area of the so-called anvil, into which British forces deployed, had suffered severe devastation and major population movements.
There should be no illusion that British troops on an operational deployment can expect to find all mod cons in the field, particularly in what was only recently a war

zone. That said, where there have been shortcomings in conditions, action has been taken or is in hand to rectify them, as we have set out in our response to the Committee's report. Let me give a few examples.
Until late in the planning process, it remained unclear exactly where UK and other units would be deployed in Bosnia, and therefore what accommodation would be needed. Nevertheless, in anticipation of a shortfall, the purchase of accommodation units and Arctic tents was approved as soon as the peace agreement was signed, and in advance of the operation. Because of the lead times for delivery, accommodation units were not available in theatre at the start of the deployment. But construction has continued in recent months in order to ensure the provision of essential base facilities as the pattern of deployment has become clearer.
In the case of warm clothing, some units' specific operational roles included the possibility of an Arctic deployment. Those units were already equipped with winter clothing on their initial deployment. For other units, the purchase of warm clothing was approved in advance of the operation, but production lead times were up to six months. However, I am pleased to inform the House that the latest range of all-weather Army clothing, combat soldier 95, has just been released into service, and those units serving in Bosnia have been given priority for issue.
The issue of welfare telephones has been a source of much concern. When British troops first deployed into multinational division south-west, many found themselves in locations not served by the telephones installed during the UNPROFOR operation. The work undertaken to rectify that deficiency has been described in the Government's response to the Committee's report. A further tranche of telephone equipment was deployed to theatre last month, and the company which is carrying out that work expects to complete installation by the end of the month.
More than 95 per cent. of British troops in former Yugoslavia will then have access to welfare telephones. In the circumstances of this deployment, that is no mean achievement. The remaining personnel are located at sites where the permanent installation of telephones is not commercially viable. Arrangements have been made for such personnel to visit the nearest welfare telephone facilities regularly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside raised the question of elections and the OSCE work on elections. The OSCE has made arrangements with key capitals where there is a concentration of refugees for them to vote in absentia. Refugees are entitled to register to vote in absentia in their place of residence in 1991. If they wish to vote elsewhere, they must do so in person. OSCE arrangements are well advanced for the elections. IFOR is lending assistance wherever possible, such as with transportation, area security and planning support.
My hon. Friend also asked about the cost of the Bosnian deployment. In paragraph 28 of the Government's response, we say:
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that the additional costs of UK participation in IFOR should not be borne on the Defence Budget. A decision whether any costs should fall to the Reserve in FY1996/97 can only be taken when the implications of containing the costs of the IFOR deployment within the Defence Budget become clearer much later in the year.


I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about LPD replacements. These are good news for Barrow and for the many sub-contractors throughout the country who will benefit from these orders. They will help to sustain about 2,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, and they are very good news for the armed forces as well.

Mr. Keith Mans: In connection with the new orders, can we expect any further announcements in the next week or so, bearing it in mind that a number of orders are pending and that parts of the armed forces, having taken the pain over redundancies and reductions during the past three or four years, are looking forward to gain from new equipment?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I have no doubt that others will have done so, too.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), one of which related to tour intervals. We fully recognise the strain that can be placed on soldiers and their families by too-frequent operational tours. We aim for a reasonable interval between them, but it has to vary from unit to unit, and according to Army commitments such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia. The long-term strength of the Army is, of course, kept under review in the light of changing circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular tour intervals for Royal Engineers and Royal Signals units serving in Bosnia. I acknowledge that both those corps are heavily committed at present. We have taken steps to reduce the pressure in these areas in the short term by the use of reservists, and in the medium term by increases in Regular manpower establishments in specific areas. We are also reviewing our engineer support to other commitments.
A question also arises in relation to light reconnaissance units. I acknowledge that they too have a short operational tour interval. We are taking action to correct that with the creation of a third light recce regiment next year, and I am confident that that will improve tour intervals.
The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and others asked about a follow-on force. IFOR has to concentrate on the task in hand, particularly during the run-up to elections, and much remains to be done to ensure that IFOR continues to succeed. It is right to put aside speculation as to what might happen next year, and apply ourselves at the moment to the challenges to be faced in the next six months.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon that IFOR experience demonstrates that transatlantic co-operation is essential, and it would be difficult to contemplate a United Kingdom contribution to any post-IFOR force without substantial US ground forces.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made a wise speech, which I have come to expect from him every time I listen to him. He raised a point about war criminals, which was also mentioned by others. The Government strongly support the work of the international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia. We have always stressed the importance of bringing to

justice those responsible for serious violations of international law in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. The primary responsibility for handing over war criminals rests with the parties themselves, and we urge them to do so.
But IFOR also provides considerable support to the tribunal, and the tribunal has said that it is satisfied with this level of support. IFOR will detain any indicted war criminals with whom it comes into contact in the performance of its mission and if the circumstances permit. Although IFOR does not have a mandate to hunt down indicted war criminals, it is increasing its presence throughout Bosnia in preparation for the elections, and that will impose a further constraint on the movement of indicted war criminals.
I conclude by looking ahead. The IFOR mission and the UK contribution to it has been a conspicuous success, but much remains to be done. We must put aside speculation as to what will happen next year. Instead, we need to concentrate on what remains to be achieved this year.

Mr. Winnick: I apologise to the Minister and the House that I was absent for much of the debate, but I was here at the start, and intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
Will the Minister say whether there is an on-going debate about the possibility of a different Security Council resolution about war criminals—namely, that they should be apprehended? Perhaps in the next few weeks we shall see such a change. Perhaps the Minister will comment on press speculation along those lines.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not want to say more than I have already about war criminals, except to echo a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which I think was repeated this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman: that there can be no lasting peace in Bosnia unless indicted war criminals are brought to justice.
Four key challenges remain to be dealt with. We must assist the Bosnians in the reconstruction of their country, so that they can see the benefits of peace. We must facilitate the return of the 2.5 million people displaced from their homes. There must be free and fair elections. The organisation is for the Bosnians themselves, but they will need help.
In answer to the point movingly made by the hon. Member for Western Isles, the people of Bosnia must choose to live together. They have stopped fighting, but to date they have shown little sign of reconciliation. These tasks are primarily for their civilian organisations and, most importantly, the people of Bosnia, but, within the limits of its military task, IFOR will do all that it can to assist for the duration of its mission.
United Kingdom forces will continue to play their full part in this, and I have every confidence that they will do so to the impressively high standards that they have achieved from the outset of the IFOR mission. They will tackle their demanding task with all the more courage and determination in the knowledge that they enjoy the confidence and support of the House and the country at large.

Mr. Colvin: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to some of the remarks made by hon. Members this afternoon.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the speedy way in which he responded to the recommendations of the Committee and our call for welfare telephones, bottled water, better logistics and medical facilities in theatre. That was greatly appreciated by our forces.
My hon. Friend referred to the very successful rapid deployment of our forces. That reiterated what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Opposition spokesman, said, when he drew attention to the need to be prepared to deploy rapidly to any part of the world in support of United Nations or NATO operations. I remind Her Majesty's Government that we still have difficulty over heavy lift, transport, and some of the deployments to former Yugoslavia could not have been undertaken without assistance from our American allies. That goes not only for airlift, but for heavy lift by sea.
When I went down to the military port at Marchwick in my constituency to see our troops depart, I was told that they were waiting for American transports to arrive to convey them to Bosnia. That should be dealt with—and I know that Her Majesty's Government already have plans for the lease of two ro-ro ships.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to overstretch. No one else has mentioned it, but it has a tremendous impact on the recruitment of service men and women. We are short of staff in all three services, particularly in the infantry, which has some 4,000 vacancies. We must bear that in mind. I was pleased that the Overseas Development Administration was acclaimed for the work that it is doing in the former Yugoslavia. We had first-hand experience of that work, and congratulate Dr. Greenall on his achievements.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who is our technological expert on the Committee, had a number of things to say about the Dayton accord and whether it was too ambitious. He and other hon. Members questioned whether the deadline of 14 September was over-optimistic. The important thing is that that deadline puts pressure on everyone to deliver. I only pray that the elections, when they take place, are seen by everyone—especially the Bosnian people—to be free and fair. If they are not, we shall still have a difficulty.
It is unthinkable that IFOR should withdraw before there is a satisfactory conclusion. Although no one will make any promises, I think that it is an open secret that there will be an on-going presence—IFOR 2, perhaps. It is essential for it to be a NATO presence. We must not revert to the old United Nations command structure that proved so unsatisfactory.
Let me say in its defence that the United Nations had never had to mount such an operation before; nor, for that matter, had NATO. NATO had been prepared for an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the former Soviet Union in rather different circumstances, but its command and communication structures showed themselves capable of responding to a completely new situation. That is greatly to NATO's credit.
This afternoon, the House has demonstrated the same consensus and unanimity as that traditionally achieved by the Select Committee. I only wish that that was a more regular feature of our exchanges on other matters.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Class VI, Vote 1

Housing Need

[Relevant documents: Second report from the Environment Committee of Session 1995–96, on Housing Need, House of Commons Paper No. 22–1, the Government's response thereto (Cm 3259) and the Department of the Environment Annual Report.' The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2807).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further, revised sum not exceeding £3,083,844,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; slum clearance, repairs and other improvements to private housing; payments to the Housing Corporation; the transfer of local authority estates to new landlords; accommodation for the homeless and special needs accommodation; housing management and mobility; rent officers and Rent Assessment Panels; grants for the provision of gypsy sites; grants to home improvement agencies; asylum seekers' special housing grant; for research projects, including European Community programmes; publicity; and for sundry other housing and construction services and projects.—[Mr. Curry.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the Environment Committee's report on housing need, which is an important issue.
I thank all those who submitted evidence to the Committee. A Select Committee—certainly, the Environment Committee—depends a good deal on the quality of evidence, and the willingness of those who submit it to come before the Committee and answer questions. I also thank all the staff in the Select Committee office—including Steve Priestley, the Clerk—for helping us to marshal the evidence and organise our activities. I am also grateful to our specialist advisers, Christine Whitehead and Peter Chapman, who gave us invaluable advice and helped to steer us into the crucial areas of investigation. Finally, I am grateful to the Committee itself, which worked in a very co-operative way.
Let me express particular appreciation to my predecessor in the Chair, the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), who is now the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency. I say that for two reasons. First, I have some reservations about the way in which Select Committees work. They depend on a Government majority within them, and the Government sometimes try to influence their workings and, perhaps, to encourage them not to become too deeply embroiled in some of the more controversial issues.
Between 1983 and 1992, the Committee produced some excellent reports on "green" issues, but during that time it never examined local government finance—for instance, the whole question of the poll tax—or housing, because its then Chairman felt that on such controversial matters the Select Committee would not work particularly well. I was very pleased when the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire became Chairman, and agreed—perhaps as a result of a little pressure from Opposition Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford)—that we should try to examine some of those more controversial issues. In 1993 we were very


successful, managing to consider the question of the Housing Corporation and housing associations and producing what I considered to be a useful report.
One of that report's key recommendations was for the Government to publish again their estimates of housing need. I was disappointed by their response, in which they said that they were still not prepared to publish the figures. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire had joined the Government when, relatively soon after that, he obviously remembered the report of his Select Committee and was part of the process that produced the Government's figures for housing need.
I have always felt a little sympathy for the Government. First they are castigated for not publishing the housing need figures; then, as soon as they publish them, they are told that the figures are wrong. If we are to have a proper debate in this country about three issues, we must have those housing need figures. First, there is the sheer importance of meeting housing need effectively. As the introduction to our report states,
Shelter is one of the most basic human needs. Being without a home is a catastrophe. Not only are the roofless deprived of the means to improve their lot: an address holds the key to employment, credit, goods, support, and services.
When we quote statistics, we should bear in mind the number of individuals who do not have adequate housing. It is easy for those who live comfortably to forget them. The first reason why housing need is an important issue, then, is the human tragedy that lies behind it.
Secondly, providing housing takes up a substantial proportion of the resources of both individuals and the nation. That proportion has tended to grow. Back in 1960, individual households spent about 9.5 per cent. of their income on housing; the figure has now risen to about 15.8 per cent. Some of those who are in the least adequate housing—in poor furnished rented accommodation—spend more than a quarter of their income on housing costs. While Government expenditure on housing provision, particularly the provision of social housing, has tended to decline, expenditure on housing benefit has risen dramatically. Thus the second reason why it is important that we have a clear idea of housing need relates to the personal and national allocation of resources.
Thirdly, we need to know about housing need because if we need more houses, we need to decide where they will be built. There is also the question of planning, which spills over into matters such as public transport. Low-density housing affects public transport. Such issues are important. We must also protect the countryside. We do not want it to be built over. Thus the three reasons why we need to understand housing need are: individual needs, allocation of resources and the planning implications.
On resources, the central question is: how long will the problem last? The Select Committee appreciated that the Government published the figures up to the year 2006, but we wanted them to publish figures up to 2011 or, possibly, 2016. I regret that the Government have not been able to accept that recommendation. I understand that the further into the future the estimate, the more difficult it is to make. The longer estimates may turn out to be pretty inaccurate towards the end, but they can give us an idea of the trend.
It is important to understand the trend. By analogy, if one is swimming against the current, it helps to know when the current will change. One's behaviour will be different if one knows that the current will change in five minutes from one's behaviour if one knows that it will never change. It would help if the Government would examine predicting beyond the year 2006. If housing need continues in an upward curve, we shall have to behave in a way different from how we would behave if, after the year 2006, the figure started to fall. Will we be trying to meet a need that has peaked or a continuing one? I hope that the Government push further forward their housing need predictions, if not tonight, then certainly over the next few months.
The Committee received much evidence that the Government's estimates have not taken account of unmet need. I was pleased that paragraph 39 of the Government's response hinted that they might be changing their attitude and that future studies would try to make more of an estimate of unmet need. I also noticed that they criticised the Committee for not putting a figure on unmet need, which I accept, and that they tried to argue that unmet need was falling. They suggested that the number of people sleeping rough was declining. I do not have much confidence in that view, because my experience from Greater Manchester and from walking around London is that the problem is not declining.
The Government say that fewer people are having to be put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that the figures for overcrowding have gone down. The statistics may be correct, but they were not much supported by the evidence that the Committee received—and certainly not by my constituency experience. At this stage, I do not want to argue too much about who is right and who is wrong. I want to impress on the Government the fact that we need a calculation of unmet need.
In considering housing need, it is crucial that we examine existing stock. There has been a tendency in the House to bandy about the idea that local authorities have a lot of empty properties. That is a myth. The evidence to the Select Committee was that the majority, although not all, of local authorities had got to grips with the problem and were doing well. The good ones at least were reducing the number of empty council properties. I am afraid that the Government, especially the Ministry of Defence, were not doing quite so well; we shall have to watch what happens in the next few months in respect of that.
The number of empty privately owned houses is an intriguing question. With the downturn in the housing market, that number has tended to increase. How many empty owner-occupied, or perhaps owner-unoccupied houses do we need to have a properly regulated housing market? It is pointed out, especially by people who are worried about building lots of new houses all over the countryside, that if all the owner-occupied houses—I am getting tangled; perhaps I need another phrase—were occupied, we would not need to build so many houses. How many houses need to be empty to allow people to move around the country?
The next question is: how many houses are in the wrong place? That fundamental question has not had much attention. In some areas, there is almost a surplus of houses. People find it difficult to sell their houses because the jobs have disappeared, and councils find it difficult to let houses. In allocating resources, we must


decide whether to take steps to ensure that the jobs go to those areas or whether to help people to move to such areas for retirement or other reasons rather than having to build more and more houses in areas where there are employment opportunities.
How many houses in the existing stock are of the wrong type? The Select Committee received much evidence on the problem of bed-sits. Some housing associations, and certainly some local authorities, were enthusiastic about building bed-sits in the late 1950s and 1960s. They were aimed especially at elderly people, with the idea that they would not want large dwellings to look after and would be happy with bed-sits. Many of them were happy in the 1960s, but increasingly, elderly people are not happy with them. They prefer to have bedrooms separate from their living rooms and often would prefer two bedrooms, especially in the case of couples where one has an infirmity and does not sleep well. Such problems need to be tackled. Bed-sits are becoming increasingly difficult to let.
I am critical of Stockport council in my constituency, and of one or two others, which, perhaps because of the pressure not to have empty properties, are keen to let bed-sits to people who come off the housing waiting list. Those people sometimes have drug-related problems. They may be alcoholics or have psychiatric problems. They would be difficult neighbours. I could make a pretty good fuss about it if such people lived next to me. But it is unfair when they are put into bed-sits next to elderly people who have enough problems coping with day-to-day life. In considering the existing stock, we must remember that many bed-sits must be remodelled if we are to get the best use out of them and not produce major problems.
My last point on the existing stock is that some social housing estates, because of the way in which they have developed, are unpopular. Perhaps the Government have not spent enough money, but they have allowed local authorities to spend considerable amounts in implementing the estate action scheme and other schemes to reinvigorate some of the estates. Some of those schemes have been extremely successful and some of them will give long life to those estates. Some of them have had spectacularly large sums spent on them but, five or six years later, we cannot see the benefit of that expenditure.
In the Chamber we have, over the years, become hung up on whether or not properties are owned. We tend to take the view that if someone owns his property, he looks after it and if he is a tenant, he does not. I can think back to minutes of meetings of tenants' associations in my constituency in the 1950s and 1960s—although they were tenants, they behaved as if they owned the estate. The idea of ownership—whether a property is bought using a mortgage or whether rent is paid—is important.
When the Select Committee visited Sandwell and one or two other places, it saw tenants' representatives—tenants' enablers. The schemes that have implemented housing renewal on council estates and have involved the tenants, have been successful. I only wish that the same had happened in parts of my constituency in Stockport. The housing manager, Mr. Hilton—who has just been promoted—was very good at getting the Government to give the council permission to spend money, but he never overcame the problem of management. I am disappointed, because I do not believe that the tenants in some areas of

my constituency feel that the estates are theirs or that they have responsibility. They tend to feel that it is the housing manager's estate and behave accordingly.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about ownership. One important factor is the way in which the estate is designed—its physical shape. It is much easier for someone who lives in a more conventional street with neighbours, in a classical setting, to feel a sense of ownership than it is for someone living in a high-rise block, which is part of a series of blocks with wasteland between each one. That is why one of the key factors of the estate action and estate renewal programmes has been to consider the overall design and to accept elements of demolition; in that way, we can create a physical environment that gives people a greater sense of ownership.

Mr. Bennett: I accept what the Minister says—there is considerable evidence to support that view. If estates are redesigned and properties taken out, the available stock is reduced. The redesign may make the stock better, but if there are to be more demolitions—in order to achieve what the Minister has just suggested, more demolitions may be necessary—we may need to build more houses or build between blocks. We should house people in dwellings that are people-friendly, not people-unfriendly. The Minister should do a little more work on weighing up the consequences of repair as opposed to rebuild. I am worried that there are some tower blocks and deck access schemes where it might be better value for money in the long run to start again rather than to try to make the existing dwellings people-friendly.
Another aspect of existing stock that concerned the Committee was that of red lining. I do not want to become involved in arguments across the Chamber about whether it was a great idea in the 1980s to encourage many people, particularly council tenants in high-rise blocks of flats, to buy their property. It has happened and, having happened, I am worried about the number of people who are finding it difficult to resell their property. There is nothing worse on a council estate than to have many houses that are well looked after and two or three houses or flats that are neglected or empty and look a mess. It is particularly upsetting if those properties are owned by individuals who have simply walked away from them.
In the 1980s, the building societies were keen to let people have mortgages on some of the properties; now, the building societies have lost their enthusiasm for lending money. The building societies have let this country down on too many occasions. In the 1960s and early 1970s, they were reluctant to lend money on old, Victorian properties, some of which were good value for money. On that occasion, the local authorities acted as the lender of last resort and made it possible to borrow on those properties. Interestingly, more recently, the building societies have taken over responsibility for many of those mortgages from local councils. Having shown enthusiasm for providing mortgages for residents in big blocks of flats, it is unfair of the building societies to withdraw that support, and doing so causes a great deal of hardship. One crucial factor when considering housing need is the analysis of existing stock, of which we must make as good a use as possible.
Have the Government made a correct estimate of total housing need? Points that I have made about housing stock suggest that I believe that the Government's estimate is too low. One of the Committee's most difficult tasks was to come up with the right estimate. We fudged it and said that we thought that, on the whole, the Government's estimate should be at the top of the range rather than towards the bottom.
In response to the Select Committee's report, the Government attempted to justify their figures. They said that if we continued to build at the rate of about 60,000 social houses per year, that would be perfectly all right. The Government achieve their own target, but that target is low. The Government's excuse is that we do not need as many social houses provided by the public sector, because the private rented sector is doing better than we thought.
I am worried about the private rented sector—I am not against it in principle, but I am worried about some of it. The evidence in my constituency shows that some of the private rented sector consists of poor-quality housing. If it was cheap, poor-quality housing, we might be able to say that the Government had found a good bargain. But I am worried because much of it is poor-quality housing—people have to live in inadequate housing—but it is dear and it is paid for out of housing benefit. The tenant gets a poor deal; the Government get a poor deal because housing benefit amounts to a big bill.
The private rented sector has also grown, but only temporarily, as a result of the number of people who have found it difficult to sell their property, so have rented it out. I do not think that all those cases should be dealt with as if they provided social housing. If someone rents out a house in one part of the country and cannot sell it, when he moves to another part of the country, he has to rent rather than buy. That process does not contribute to social housing. I accept that, sometimes, when property is difficult to sell, people move into it as social housing and receive high housing benefit to pay for it. We need more information about the private rented sector before the Government can justify their low estimates.

Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the problem of the high prices being paid by the public, through housing benefit, for sub-standard housing in the private sector. How does he propose to tackle the problem? Would he suggest limiting housing benefit to a certain amount according to the property's condition? What other method would he suggest?

Mr. Bennett: I do not want to return to the time when we subsidised housing as opposed to people, but we may have gone a little too far in the direction of subsidising the individual, which has produced the poverty trap. In this debate, I simply want to illustrate that that was one of the areas that concerned the Select Committee. We are worried about the estimates. We understand the Government's argument about the private rented sector, but at this stage, we need more information.
What I am coming to—this is not strongly recommended by the Select Committee—is that if we are to try to push up the number of social houses that we are

building, we must consider a pretty fundamental question: where will the money come from? I would certainly argue very strongly that, although the Government are looking for tax cuts in the autumn, if they have any spare money, an awful lot more ought to be going into housing.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, on the Front Bench, that, although he has a scheme for building more houses from capital receipts in the first one or two years of a Labour Government—if he is a little inefficient, it might go into a third year—we must consider firmly where the money will come from after that. We might be able to reduce the amount that is being spent on housing benefit by getting people back to work. The minimum wage may throw some people off housing benefit.
I would argue, although I shall not expand on it tonight, that we should weigh up the Treasury rules and the fact that there has been too much pussyfooting around about where the money comes from. If a country is investing in housing that will be of long-term benefit, such expenditure should not be treated in quite the same way as borrowing money to pay social security bills or other expenditure. That is not in the Select Committee's report; it is very much my view. One of the advantages of the Government publishing figures and of this debate is that we can argue in other areas of public expenditure that housing need must be met.
One issue that came out strongly in evidence to the Select Committee was special housing need. It is very obvious that the elderly and other groups of people need special housing. One of the most interesting things that the Committee found concerned lifetime homes. We were invited up to York by the Joseph Rowntree trust to look at some of the houses that it was developing, which were designed so that people with disabilities of one sort or another could adapt them at a very small extra cost. I am not saying that such houses are the whole solution. The Government have been considering building regulations and how far houses should be designed to be friendly to adaptation by people who live in them for short or lifelong periods. I hope that those regulations will come out fairly soon.
Where will the houses go? There was much technical argument in Committee on how far it is possible to measure housing need looking downwards from a national perspective and how far it can be considered from the bottom up. One of my disappointments is that it is not possible to get the two figures to meet to see what is happening. There was much evidence that those two approaches should be merged and that there should not be such a top-down approach.
One of the crucial questions is how many new houses we need. Paragraph 16 of the Government's response says that there will be a discussion document. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been going around the country saying that 4.4 million new homes need to be built. Where should they go? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when that discussion document will be published, so that we can have a proper debate on it. I suggest that the method for planning housing in London ought to be considered for other areas. The London housing capacity survey is quite important.
It is important that much of the new housing is built on brown-field sites. I congratulate the Government on the fact that almost 50 per cent. of new housing is being built on such sites, but I suggest that they should work the figure up even higher. I have some reservations about what a brown-field site is. I am not quite sure whether Stonehenge counts or not. There is a little evidence that some of the sites that are classified as brown-field sites do not have quite the grime of the gasworks with which we would associate the term brown-field site.
As the first paragraph of the Select Committee report says,
The Government's declared aim is 'a decent home … within reach of every family'''.
That ought to be the nation's aim, but our report makes it quite clear that we have a very long way to go to meet it.

Sir Irvine Patnick: I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in his tributes to the people he mentioned. I know that he is a modest person, but if he will permit me, I should like to pay tribute to him. He rules our proceedings in Committee in a fair and frank manner. I do not intend, however, to follow his remarks. I want to travel a different route, but I hope that we reach the same destination.
When a witness mentioned forecasting future housing need while, as a member of the Environment Committee, I was taking evidence on housing need one day, my memory flashed back to many years ago to when I was but a mere house building contractor. Later on, I remembered a time years ago when I was trying to complete a form— I think that it was from the Government—on forecasting how many houses I would build in that quarter, bearing in mind mortgages, overdraft, land availability and, if they were ever built, whether they would sell in the prevailing economic climate. Oh yes, I remember the Labour Government well. All had to be taken into consideration. In addition, I think that there were penalties if the form was not returned on time. Furthermore, a check had to be made on the previous form that I had completed. It was a time-consuming crystal-ball job, which was not very scientific bearing in mind the fact that there were no computers, spreadsheets and all of today's tools of the trade.
This was a time when bricks had to be unloaded by hand and were not delivered on pallets, when concrete and mortar were mixed by hand and not delivered on site, and when plastic drainage pipes were in their infancy. Window frames were timber and eaves, gutters and rainwater pipes had just started changing from timber and cast iron to plastic. That was only 25 years ago.
Around that time, municipal housing gave way to a new style of accommodation. The traditional housing, which my right hon. Friend the Minister refers to as classic-style dwellings, was terrace blocks. Four blocks, six blocks and eight blocks, as they were called, were being replaced by high-rise, high-density blocks. The life expectancy of such dwellings, which wasted a vast amount of communal land around them, was limited. I watched many being built, and lived to see many demolished.
In Leeds, a most famous block of flats—Quuryhill flats—which was reputed to be the largest in Europe, had a built-in waste disposal system. If my memory serves me correctly, those flats were demolished because the cost of

replacing the waste disposal system and putting the flats back into good repair was too great. Even then, municipal authorities had to outdo others and build even bigger and better blocks than other towns. Such rivalry continues today.
I recollect a light rail system being built in Manchester, and Sheffield following with its own system. The building of Supertram in Sheffield created chaos on the streets, and I imagine that there is a huge shortfall between the £240 million Government grant and the project's actual cost. Incentives to ride on such facilities, such as park and ride, need to be addressed. Many cities are on the starting blocks waiting to introduce their own light railway systems, which are truly no different from the high-rise, high-density concept—but I digress.
Houses in terrace-type blocks had their own front and back doors, and their own gardens to the front and rear. Access to the backs of all the houses was gained by way of a covered passage. The semi-detached houses on those "classic" estates were much sought after. Some of those council estates exist today. They are still very popular, and many of the houses have been bought under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.
During the period when compulsory purchase and slum clearance were in vogue, I became a member of Sheffield city council and of its housing committee and public works committee, the latter under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). A former chairman of Sheffield housing committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was then a Member of Parliament.
At that time, the Parker Morris standards determined the facilities and the plumbing, and whether a property could be improved at reasonable cost. Thus, dwellings that could have had a long life were demolished in the name of progress, and their occupants dispersed over the city. Communities were broken up, and the small shops that served the area were either demolished or had to close.
That was the start of a new environment in which traditional values were lost. I accept that not all the dwellings that were cleared were capable of being improved. Some would have had to be pulled down anyway, but many of the dwellings, with a damp-proof course inserted, new electrics, and a plumbing system coupled with a bathroom and kitchen, would have had a passport into the next century and onwards.
Meanwhile, high-density blocks of concrete flats with flat roofs invaded. If I had to select one such site as an example of that era it would be the Kelvin flats in Sheffield, which will be known to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is now in the Chamber. I remember canvassing those flats during an election campaign. The open decks turned into wind tunnels, making them freezing places. If one knocked on a door and waited, the tenant came up the steps to the front door—usually up the steps of the flat next door. Millions of pounds were poured in to try to improve those flats, but eventually the decision was made to demolish them all.
Some of the properties that had been removed to make way for the flats would still have been around, not only today but for many years to come. They had in-built durability, and we have yet to ascertain the durability of the dwellings built in the 1950s and 1960s.
The demolition of the original properties created the problem of breaking up communities, for many houses had been replaced by fewer dwellings—flats that were not readily accepted in an area not used to communal life in blocks of flats. That was all the fault of the nature of the planning brief in those days.
I recollect with fond memories that, on a popular estate—one of the estates that the Minister would describe as "classical"—it was possible to guess the age of the occupants of the houses. The names on the electoral roll were the giveaway, because they were no longer in vogue. The state of the garden too, gave a clue in most cases, letting us know that the residents were elderly, and might have moved out if there had been a smaller property nearby to move into. The four, six and eight blocks could have been converted into self-contained flats, with central heating and a lift on the outside of the block, which would in turn have released the other dwellings for other residents to use.
That would have increased mobility, yet most old people, rightly, wish to stay in their existing homes. Who can blame them? A good friend of mine aged 91—I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning him—has recently lost his sight. Last Saturday, he managed to find his way to my home, and after a long chat I offered to walk him back home to his wife. It was not far.
When we arrived at my friend's home, he mentioned his concern about the garden, and I asked if I could look at it. Hon. Members must not imagine that it is a large garden. We had to go down some steps—six in all. My friend counted them out, and informed me that some were wider than others. Then he pointed out where his roses, his soft fruit and his lawn were. Despite his blindness and disability, my friend had his memories and was at home. Move him, and he would be totally lost.
When I was in the house building industry, the sites were either green-field sites or infill plots. Today, our planners, like the Chairman of the Environment Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, call them brown-field sites. The planners advocate making better and more imaginative use of existing buildings and empty homes.
The planners also advise that projections of housing provision should be subject to further examination as part of the preparation of a development plan, saying that we must ensure that up-to-date information is used, and should even take into account information on demographic and housing market trends, as well as land availability. House builders and councils will in future have to monitor the supply of land, while advice on the affordability of housing is spelt out in policy planning guidance note 3—PPG3.
Rural areas can be affected by "in-migration", which is a new word to me. Today, local authorities are advised to make use of existing housing stock and to reduce the number of empty dwellings. That is advice that a council such as Sheffield could take on board.
Last year in Sheffield, there were 330 properties vacant for up to three weeks, 363 vacant for between three and six weeks, 810 vacant for between six weeks and six months, 324 vacant for between six months and one year, and 219 vacant for more than one year—a total of 2,046. Those are the Audit Commission's figures, not mine.
In the Government's response to the Committee's report, it is said that, although the void rate is about 2 per cent., that includes properties in need of extensive renovation before they can be used, and properties awaiting demolition. Nationally, the number of local authority void properties awaiting minor repairs or letting averages just over 1 per cent., yet the percentage of Sheffield local authority dwellings unlet is 2.85 per cent., and the percentage for Yorkshire and Humberside is 1.95 per cent. Another interesting fact is that the average time taken to relet in Sheffield is 48 days.
The recommendation of today's planners is to encourage the conversion of larger under-occupied dwellings into flats. That takes me back to what I said before about terraced houses. It is a funny old world. Planners also advocate the conversion into dwellings of suitable non-residential property, such as former mill offices, warehouses and empty space above shops, and recycling vacant, under-used and previously developed land in urban areas. That advice could be followed by Sheffield development corporation in the lower Don valley—by building houses where factories used to be.
In rural areas, infill sites in rural settlements, when appropriate to their character and structure, may be a solution, but without incursion into the green belt. More is the pity that the planners of yesteryear were not given that simple advice, which today we can all go along with. If they had been, we would have a larger stock of what an old Sheffield alderman, a former chairman of the housing committee who is no longer with us, called units of accommodation.
It has been an enjoyable experience for me to return to talking about building, albeit for a short time. I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee report on housing need, especially the fact that they accept that the published estimates are but work in progress, and that they are working on a way of improving estimates of the demand for housing.
I also welcome the fact that the Government fully recognise the importance of improving their understanding of the factors that affect the number and type of households that are formed, and I await with great interest their discussion document, which will examine trends.
The Select Committee commented on empty dwellings. It is true that the performance of local authorities as landlords, with all their vacancies, leaves a lot to be desired. That factor is taken into account and used in the housing revenue account subsidy calculation, in recognition of the rental income that is lost to authorities. The proportion of local authority properties that are void while awaiting letting averages just over 1 per cent.
As I have already said, the private and public sectors must grow together to ensure that accommodation is available for our needs both today and in the future. I would have commented on many other aspects of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, but I know that others are waiting to speak.
In conclusion, the advice that planners are giving us today could result in yet another change in housing accommodation. Who knows whether, in years to come, the properties that were recommended to be converted from industrial use to dwellings may return to their former use so that the housing wheel will have gone a full cycle.

Mr. Greg Pope: I enter the debate with some trepidation, given the number of members of the Environment Committee present and the fact I am not a member of that Select Committee.
I begin by warmly welcoming the Committee's report on housing need. It demonstrates the scale of housing need in the United Kingdom and the extent to which the Government have underestimated it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his wide-ranging introduction to this evening's fairly brief debate and say with some consternation that I found little to disagree with in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). I was interested in his recollection of canvassing deck access flats in Sheffield, and their later demolition. I trust that there was no correlation between his canvass returns and the decision to demolish the flats.
As a member of the housing committee on Blackburn borough council, I recall taking the decision to demolish deck access flats many years before local authorities had paid for them. The decision was made on the correct grounds—people did not want to live in them. The hon. Member for Hallam may share my view that the decision to build the flats in the 1960s was understandable. When faced with the squalor of urban housing in the 1960s, many local authorities did what they thought best and built high-density housing, some of it deck access. It turned out to be a tragic mistake, but there is no point in trying to allocate political blame.
I shall address a narrow part of the report—that relating to private sector disrepair—but I am not making a partisan speech. The Government attempted to address the problem in recent legislation and, to be fair to them, they recognised some of the deficiencies inherent in the existing grant system. In 1993, the Department of the Environment noted that the mandatory grants system had given rise to unsustainable financial pressures, and in 1995 it stated that
mandatory grants have created unrealistic expectations. The demand for grants has exceeded the resources available.
That is a masterly understatement in respect of my constituency.
Also to be fair to the Government, some of the measures that they have introduced over the past few years have been an improvement on what went before. For example, there is fairly general recognition that housing renewal areas were an improvement on housing action areas and general improvement areas. It is a pity that, when the Government first flagged up the idea of housing renewal areas before the 1987 general election, they implied that the scheme would attract extra Government support. It has never been forthcoming
It is now clear that, even with housing renewal areas, the mandatory grants system was failing. Many local authorities—including mine—have not been able to meet the huge demand for mandatory grants and, therefore, comply with the law. The Department of the Environment concluded that
the main problem with the arrangements is that, while resources remain finite the system has turned out largely demand led.
Nowhere has that been shown more starkly than in my constituency.
Most of the housing in my constituency—and in east Lancashire generally—was constructed during the industrial revolution. Although it served its purpose well, there is little doubt that, as towns expanded, houses were built fairly rapidly and, inevitably, some corners were cut.
Much of the original housing remains. More than half of the houses in my constituency were built before the first world war. That is not unusual in the urban parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Decay in those properties has been unavoidable, and there are now around 9,500 homes in need of statutory intervention because they are unfit for habitation. Another 5,500 homes need immediate assistance to avoid becoming unfit in the near future. So, 15,000 homes require serious renovation. The Minister would not disagree that it is broadly unacceptable in this day and age that 15,000 families in my constituency should live in sub-standard housing.
It is interesting to note that, in response to the Department's consultation paper, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated:
if the Government's proposals are implemented"—
they are now in the process of implementation—
conditions in the private sector will inevitably continue to deteriorate and more people on low incomes will be condemned to live in officially uninhabitable accommodation, with the associated consequences for related policy areas such as ill health and area regeneration.
The Government have placed local authorities in a dilemma. Until now, they have stated that mandatory repairs have to be carried out on properties, otherwise the local authority can be hauled before the local government ombudsman, but they are not prepared to fund even a fraction of the cost of meeting that requirement. If local authorities spent money that they did not have, however, there is no doubt that the Government would seek to have the councillors surcharged. Local authorities are in a no-win situation.
The Government are now in the process of extricating themselves from that appalling mess by removing the mandatory duty on local authorities to provide home improvement grants for people whose properties fail the fitness standard. That is all well and good for the Government, but where does it leave my 15,000 constituents who are in housing need and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who face similar difficulties?
Many people recognise the scale of the problem. The Select Committee heard evidence that there are 1.5 million properties that are unfit for human habitation in England alone. They include 157,000 homes without heating other than portable heaters, 272,000 homes without adequate ventilation, 165,000 homes without a bathroom and 150,000 homes that do not meet the bedroom standard for space. The director of the House Builders Federation told the Select Committee that unfitness in the private sector was both
a significant problem and one that is not easy to resolve.
I agree.
Some housing is simply beyond repair, and in those circumstances clearance is the only option. My local authority is far from unique in having insufficient resources to clear such properties to make room for regeneration. As time passes, an increasing number of properties fall into that category and certain areas are desperately in need of clearance.
My constituency suffers from the well-known problem of clearance blight. People know that their properties need clearing, as does the council, but they cannot sell their houses, and the local authority does not have the resources to demolish them. That has led to an increasing problem nationwide, but especially in east Lancashire. People simply give up hope and abandon their low-value, privately owned terraced houses. As a result, void properties that are privately owned fall into disrepair and are abandoned while—even in constituencies such as mine where homelessness was unheard of 15 years ago—there is an increasing problem of homelessness.
The School of Advanced Urban Studies in Bristol produced a report in 1994 that concluded that there was a "crisis in housing renewal", and which went on to say that there was
a continuing problem of unfitness and disrepair on a substantial scale, and that in addition to this enormous backlog, other properties will continue to fall into disrepair in the future".
The residents of those properties are entitled to ask the Government this: if they could not access improvement grants when they had a mandatory right to them, how on earth can they access a grant when that right has been removed? That is a matter of real concern in my constituency, and to the 1.5 million people who live in sub-standard housing. The Government should be concerned about that, but instead of facing up to the problem, they are running away from it.
I wish to refer briefly to public sector housing, about which the Committee took evidence. There is not a great deal of public sector housing in my constituency, where more than four out of five homes are privately owned, but many of the council estates have been greatly improved in the past few years. To be fair to the Government, the estates have been improved because the council has been able to work in partnership with the Government in the estate action programme. More than 1,000 properties in my constituency have benefited from that programme. I know what a difference it has made to many of my constituents, and I pay tribute not only to the Department of the Environment and the Minister, but to the local authority.
Sadly, the fact remains that a large number of properties—a similar number, in fact—have not benefited from estate action and they are in desperate need of investment and renovation to bring them up to the minimum standard. The problem, which must be repeated throughout the country, is with estates that have not been renovated—the estate action programme seems to have stopped but, as far as I am aware, nothing meaningful has been put in its place.
I have been trying recently to help the residents of the Sands estate in Rishton. Residents of that estate are in appalling housing need. One told me a week ago that a person would have to be absolutely desperate to accept a house on that estate. There is no way in which the local authority can access resources to help those people out of their desperate problems. I hope that the Minister will address the matter in his winding-up speech. What will to happen to people in such circumstances?The only avenue open to them at the moment is for there to be a voluntary stock transfer of estates such as the Sands from ownership by the local authority to a housing association. That is

fine, and I have no ideological hang-ups about it—my constituents who are in housing need could not, in the end, give tuppence about who the landlord of their property is. All they want is to know whether their properties will be improved.
I wish to make a point to the Minister that is neither ideological nor party political. It is far from satisfactory when the only option open to people in estates such as the one to which I have referred is to transfer ownership of the entire estate from one sector to another. Surely it would be better to put in place a funding mechanism not dissimilar to those that the Government have put in place in the past few years to provide some kind of home for people in such housing need.
Acute housing need is, without doubt, the greatest problem faced by millions of our fellow citizens. In 1996, it cannot possibly be right for 1.5 million people to be living in properties that the Government accept are unfit for human habitation. The House does not have the opportunity to debate issues such as housing anywhere near often enough, and I am grateful to the Select Committee and its Chairman for providing us with the opportunity to debate the issue tonight.

Mr. Roy Thomason: First, I declare an interest as a consultant to a building society and to a firm of solicitors, both of which inevitably have property matters relevant to their activities, although neither of them, nor any client of the solicitors, has invited me to express an opinion in the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing as a major issue and, in particular, the Select Committee report. Housing is and always will remain at the forefront of political debate, and policies related to it are deeply contentious and go to the core of social division and the distribution of wealth. The Select Committee was probably extremely courageous to take on this subject, and it is a tribute to the co-operation of all members of the Committee that the report has received almost unanimous endorsement. I hope that cross-party co-operation within the Environment Select Committee will continue despite a temporary setback.
After the provision of food, shelter for oneself and one's family is the most vital human need. It is estimated that the average cost of housing is now about 15 per cent. of disposable income. There has been a sharp increase in that figure in the past few years, but that is reflective of the sacrifices that people are prepared to make to acquire the home of their choice.
The first issue to address in a debate of this kind is the definition of housing need itself. Is it limited to those who simply want a better home? That would certainly be reflected by the expression "housing demand", but "need" goes to a narrower definition. The Committee chose not to be limited to the other extreme—those totally lacking any dwelling at all—as that would have been far too narrow. However, there are clearly individuals or families living in overcrowded conditions, lacking basic amenities or with no reasonable home available at all, and it is they who can be said to have a housing need.
There are difficulties even on the margin of that definition, particularly those who are sharing with their parents. Sometimes the space will be adequate and the amenities satisfactory, but they will still want a home of


their own, which they may have difficulty in achieving. The key additional component is, therefore, that they also cannot afford a market price, whether to rent or to buy. Inevitably, that led the report to concentrate on social housing, rather than exclusively on owner-occupation.
In considering the number of additional units that may be required, it is necessary to look at the historic position. There are clearly large numbers of people currently seeking alternative accommodation, many of whom may rightly claim a need. Should the estimated future provision required take into account that backlog, or simply address the numbers year to year, that is, keep pace but not reduce the backlog? In part, the historic backlog is also dependent upon estimating the numbers of those who live in sub-standard housing—a difficult estimate, compounded by some who do not want to move. We have heard examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
The next issue to consider is the expected level of owner-occupation. If owner-occupation is to increase as a proportion of the stock—as it has done substantially in the past two decades—less provision will be required for new household formations in the social housing sector. Conversely, fewer buyers will lead to a greater requirement for social housing. Most of us, myself included, tend to support the Government's argument that the total number of owner-occupied households is likely to rise by about 3 per cent. in the next few years to a total around, or just exceeding, 70 per cent. That takes account of those who wish to move into owner-occupation, either from adequate rented accommodation or on new household formation, coupled with right-to-buy applicants.
The right to buy remains a substantial force, and applications remain considerable. Against this figure, we must take into account those falling out of owner-occupation, particularly through repossession. The number of repossessions has fallen since the peak in the early 1990s caused by difficulties within the property market. The rise in house prices in recent months—particularly since our report was published—suggests that negative equity may be increasingly something of the past. However., it would not be unreasonable to assume that there will still be a number of repossessions, even if that is below current figures. In addition, demolition of sub-standard stock that is currently owner-occupied will have some impact on the figures.
The next factor we had to consider in calculating owner-occupation numbers relates to changes in tenure caused by social adjustments. Thus, as people live longer, there will be a tendency for them to move into sheltered accommodation or residential care from traditional owner-occupation.
The figure for owner-occupation, showing a small but still significant increase, takes into account all those factors. Thus there remains a strong determination among people generally to own their own homes. All the indications show that at least 80 per cent. of the population would like to be home owners, even if some, for financial or other reasons, will not be able to achieve it. Despite the temporary unpopularity of home ownership caused by falling property prices, there is no real indication that there has been a shift in people's desire to own their own home—the concept that the Englishman's

home is his castle and the ambition to be its owner remain dear to our national psyche, and they appear to be almost as strongly held in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Another important aspect of social change that we had to consider was the desire of young people to set up home more quickly than has been traditional. Many of us did not feel that it was appropriate for public resources to be devoted to the provision of homes for young people the moment they cease to be schoolchildren. They may have some need to establish themselves, but scarce public funds should not be made available to provide homes in those circumstances.
The exception must be particularly vulnerable youngsters, such as those leaving local authority care and others in similar circumstances. I was impressed by one scheme based in London which was making provision for young people in this situation. However, as a general rule, it is clear that while the earlier maturity of young people will create additional housing pressures, we should not expect them in general to be accommodated in social housing subsidised by the taxpayer or by fellow tenants. They will have an impact on household formation numbers, but they should not generally lead to increasing social housing demand.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, the Government estimate that up to the year 2001 there will be an annual need for between 60,000 and 100,000 units of social housing. The Government believe that a target figure towards the lower end of that range would be appropriate as slight under-provision will create demand for private rented accommodation and lead to more investment in housing for rent. The Government have estimated the figures on the basis that the number of households in England will rise by 4.4 million over the next 20 years as a result of factors such as increased life expectancy, higher net immigration, changes in marital status and co-habitation, and general growth in the, rate at which people form independent households.
We received other estimates of the number of social housing units that will required. Most were in the range of 60,000 to 100,000 units, with 120,000 probably being the largest. The Government are therefore talking of pitching the figure towards the lower end of their range, somewhere below what is considered by most observers to be the likely need, but they are not that far out, particularly if they are correct in their expectation that there will be new investment in housing. Indeed, that could ensure that the gap is made up.
That new investment, therefore, will be critical to the equation. It is imperative that housing investment trusts are a success and that private sector capital is introduced into the letting market. Some units will not be suitable for people who are able to afford only social housing rents—with or without housing benefit—but it is clear that the attraction of public sector investment in the lower range of private rented accommodation will be a vital component if pressures are not to build to an unacceptable level.
I am convinced that the Government are right in believing that that can be achieved, but they will need to monitor developments in the field closely and be prepared to step in to encourage more private investment if it appears to be failing to make up the anticipated substantial supplement to the social housing stock that is required.


Flexibility is therefore important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us later that he will continue to keep the position under review.
Little can be said about housing generally and housing need in particular without referring to planning implications. Whether provision is for social housing or for owner-occupied housing, land must be found. I represent a constituency that is particularly sensitive to development proposals. We are bordered by the west midlands conurbation and our neighbours are Solihull, Birmingham and Dudley. To the south lies the expanding town of Redditch, and Kidderminster, which has grown substantially in recent years, is not far away.
With major transport links running through the constituency, the Bromsgrove area has become a particularly popular place in which to live. Part of its popularity, as with so many other similar places, is its semi-rural nature. If we allow further development within the green belt, which covers most of the constituency, that attractive quality will be lost. This view is not simply driven by the short-term and selfish attitude of those who wish to protect their own position—the NIMBY principle—but is more about retaining green lungs around our cities and ensuring that we do not have long and continuously developed corridors of development stretching out across the countryside so that for many city dwellers a view of a field becomes a rarity.
We must ensure that our planning policies are designed to retain open areas around our cities. If that is to be achieved, it follows that there will be continuing pressure on land available for development. I therefore particularly welcome the Government's determination to ensure that 50 per cent. of new development will take place on brown-field sites. The target is not terribly ambitious, however, as the Select Committee discovered, for existing levels of development are not far from that already—itself a point worth noting.
I hope that Government planning policies will move increasingly towards the encouragement of more development on brown-field sites. I should like to see a target set of 60 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. by not much past the turn of the century. We need to introduce new life into our cities to ensure the redevelopment of derelict and contaminated land. These are not cheap and easy sites to develop. Any developer knows that a green-field site is cheaper to build on and easier to sell. If planning is about ensuring that we have a reasonable way of life and protecting our environment, this issue must be addressed and we must improve the urban landscape as well as the rural one.
It was fascinating that in the course of our inquiries we discovered evidence to suggest that the creation of new housing is leading to greater demand. Simply put, the more houses that are built, the more people are prepared to occupy them. Thus, early household formation may be encouraged by more property being available to buy or to let. If that scenario is true, and it is a fascinating one, it is a powerful argument to suggest that there should be restrictions on new development.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of the evidence vigorously denied that proposition?

Mr. Thomason: I agree that the point was subject to much dispute, but it is worth drawing it out in the debate.
It was an interesting and fairly innovative point that, rather like building roads, the more that is done the more demand is created. I have some doubt about the validity of that evidence and of the argument put to us, but more thought needs to be given to the point and I hope that the Government will research it in the future.
It is important in planning terms to differentiate between affordable—and therefore social—housing, and that built for the private sector. Density requirements imposed by planning authorities will tend to encourage the development of low-cost homes, but planning knows no distinction between social and other housing. I am sure that that is right. I would be concerned that the creation of a special planning use categorised as for social housing purposes would lead to the construction of ghettos, rather in the manner of the huge council estates that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Much more should we see a mixture of housing in low-cost developments, with planning authorities using their powers to impose conditions to direct that a proportion of new developments should contain social housing.
We cannot reasonably differentiate between local authority, housing association and private sector accommodation. What really makes a property a social one is whether it is affordable. We still have no clear definition of what affordable means. Indeed, the whole of this debate is surrounded by terms that are extremely difficult to define. Clearly, however, affordable tends to suggest that it is within the reach of the vast majority of the population.
I hope that the private sector will be increasingly able to respond to the need for affordable rented accommodation so that the trend may be away from bricks and mortar subsidy and towards subsidy of the individual through the housing benefit system. The cost of housing benefit will be a constraint on that policy, but I am sure that ultimately it is the right objective; in that respect, I disagree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
I welcome the Government's initiative to create housing investment trusts, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will say something about those in his closing remarks.
The Select Committee report has made an important contribution to a vital debate which will continue, inside and outside the Chamber, for many years to come. I commend the report to the House for consideration, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that we are holding this debate. Seven days ago, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) described this time of the week—7 o'clock to 10 o'clock on a Thursday—as "the black hole" of the parliamentary week, but we have attracted a number of right hon. and hon. Members to the Chamber today because this is an important issue.
I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing is at the front of political debate. Part of our problem is that it is not far enough toward the front of political debate. That is why I warmly welcome the work done by the Environment Select Committee and the opportunity that it has given us to debate housing need today.
Like many hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Bill earlier this year, and I know too well how knowledgeable the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), is, and how passionate he is about housing—something that I believe goes for quite a few of us present tonight.
In such a debate, it is easy to get bogged down in figures as we discuss whether we need 60,000, 90,000 or 150,000 more social homes a year. I share the view expressed by many organisations working in housing—such as Shelter, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing—that the bottom line is that the Government's estimate is inadequate. Even if the figure of 60,000 to 100,000 a year proposed by the Government were correct, it would be sensible to aim for the upper end of that scale, or at least the middle, rather than the bottom end. After all, even members of the Government admit that estimation is an imprecise art.
As has been said, not only people without homes have need. I am pleased that the Select Committee paid close attention to hidden housing need, and I am pleased that it paid special attention to the work of Alan Holmans, a former chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.
A huge number of people live in homes that are unfit to be lived in. The most recent housing condition surveys show that 2.5 million homes are unfit or in need of substantial repair, and 5 million people live in them. Those figures are frightening, but hon. Members arid the Government should study another figure—that of the country's bill for treating medical conditions caused by sub-standard housing. In a recent Committee, medical experts estimated that it might be as much as £2.4 billion a year. That figure represents only health spending. It does not take account of how illness caused by bad housing affects attendance at work or school, or increases the uptake of social security benefits. I fear that, in years to come, we may look back on the abolition of mandatory renovation grants and realise how much damage we have done and how much it will cost us in future, especially in health spending.
So many of our problems stem from the fact that, in many ways, we have not engaged in sufficient long-term thinking when considering how to provide housing. Investment has been cut year on year. There has been a lack of long-term thinking, not only at a macro level, but at a micro level. That was emphasised to some of us this year during the passage of the Housing Bill, when we realised that, as a result of the Bill, homeless people would be unable to find stability.
It is traumatic to lose one's home. It may be an eviction or a repossession, and it may have resulted from the loss of a job. Whatever the circumstances, the last thing that people need then is insecurity and short-termism, with short-term contracts, often in the private rented sector, making it impossible for them to be certain where they will be a couple of years later.
Many of those people are unable to afford even the top end of the middle of the private rented market, especially following recent housing benefit changes. They therefore end up in badly kept, often ramshackle, properties, and often they find it difficult to cope with the situation. The

history of the experiences that brought them there often makes them feel unable to challenge their landlord about some of the factors that affect the condition of the property.

Mr. Thomason: I listened to the hon. Lady's remarks about housing benefit. Is she saying that more housing benefit should be made available to tenants?

Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I put it as one of the problems of the rented sector. There is a problem with housing benefit. Many of us believed that it would be useful to subsidise the individual when it came to housing, but that has not worked. We have an enormous housing benefit bill, and many of us are considering ways in which to cut the benefit bill while ensuring that people have security in their homes. The issue is security rather than the level of benefit. Perhaps we should be considering more investment in bricks and mortar, because obviously we have a problem.
I want housing benefit to be a safety net that enables people to stay in their homes. If we were to drop housing benefit suddenly, as some proposals emanating from the Government suggest, it would not help. People would end up in housing need because they had been turned out of their property. Our challenge is to get the equation right. How do we set a benefit level that promotes better conditions in the private sector, gives people a decent safety net and encourages investment in properties? I did not intend to have a long discussion about housing benefit, but it is a key factor.
The private rented sector has an important part to play. It has grown in recent years, but not as much as the Government would have us believe. Our housing market is far more polarised than that of any other country. We have an enormous number of people in home ownership—nearly 70 per cent. of the population—and a much lower percentage living in the private rented sector. In France, 20 per cent. of the population live in the private rented sector, in Germany, 43 per cent. and in Switzerland no less than 66 per cent. Part of the reason is that private rented accommodation is subsidised differently in those countries. All political parties have been studying the way in which other countries deal with those matters.
Other hon. Members have spoken of the way in which people regard the property that they live in—whether it is important that they own rather than rent it, to make them feel that they want to look after it, that it is important and that they have a stake in it, to use that popular phrase. The experience of other countries shows that people do not need to own their property to feel that they have a stake in it. They do, however, need to feel that they have some control over their immediate environment and what goes on in their house. It has been shown in many authorities throughout the country that that can happen whether people own or rent their property. The idea is clearly possible, given the experience of other countries.
To meet housing need, we must be more flexible not only on tenures but on providing different types of housing. The Environment Select Committee discussed demographic changes. My constituency has the fifth highest proportion of pensioners in the country, so I shall dwell for a moment on how we should deal with housing for an aging population. In 15 years' time, a further


300,000 home owners will be over the age of 80. Where will they be housed and what type of homes will they need? Will they be able to stay in their present homes? Those questions will be among the most important housing questions over the next two or three decades.
We need to know how many elderly people will wish to live independently and how many will need sheltered housing or residential care. We must ensure that we meet the needs of the elderly across the range of accommodation. I am pleased that the Government have withdrawn their proposal to cut eligibility of service charges in housing benefit and have decided to set up a full review of the matter. Without such benefit, many vulnerable people could not afford to stay in their homes because they could not pay the charges to wardens or others who help them. Many people may have needed to go into institutions rather than stay in their homes. We must have a middle option and I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to my representations and those from relevant organisations.
The majority of people want to stay in their homes when they get old. A recent MORI poll for Anchor Housing showed that two thirds of home owners wished to stay where they were rather than move. The majority of those who wanted to move said that it was because their accommodation was too big for them and that they would prefer something smaller because, for example, it would be easier to heat. That shows that we need more homes that can be adapted. Creating so-called "lifetime homes" will be an important part of meeting need in that sector in the future.
I add my voice to those calling for the incorporation of those criteria into part M of the building regulations. The cost of building accessibility features into homes from the outset is small compared with the cost of incorporating them later. Our thinking must be long term. Elderly people are often put off having their homes adapted because they would not be able to stand the upheaval. The attempt by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to amend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill was not as successful as we should have liked. I hope that Ministers will eventually see the light and adopt a more far-sighted approach to accessible housing.
The debate on long-term care touches slightly different areas of housing, and we do not have time to deal with that tonight.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Lady has identified a number of problems, but what is the Liberal Democrat policy for solving them? The document entitled, "Towards 1996", prepared in her Whips Office, says:
Our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity. Our policy on freeing up council house sales receipts no longer stands up, being a little bit dated. We are still not sure what we would do about housing benefit. Our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity is expensive and ill thought out.
What are the Liberal Democrats' policies on MIRAS, council house sales, housing benefit and negative equity?

Mrs. Maddock: We always get the old chestnuts. I thought that people had got to the bottom of this, but I shall explain once again. The document from which the

hon. Gentleman quotes was used internally to make us think about those questions. Interestingly, when we were discussing the matter someone said that they wondered what Conservative Members would say if they got hold of the document. I regret to say that the document was somehow purloined, although we tried to keep it to ourselves. It was a discussion document.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady is a teenage scribbler.

Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. He does not usually descend to that level of debate. We shall produce a policy document in the future.
Before I gave way, I was about to ask how we can progress towards meeting housing needs and produce good-quality housing that people can afford to stay in, even if times get tough. I shall devote the rest of my speech to that and deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
We must help people to stay in their homes and tackle need before it becomes desperate. The Liberal Democrats propose a mortgage benefit, which would be paid for by phasing out mortgage income tax relief. We would not phase in mortgage benefit overnight as the Government would, because that is not fair on people who have made long-term financial plans. Such a scheme has been part of our policy for a long time.
The Government's attempts to help people who lose their jobs not to lose their homes have not been successful. Insurance is sensible and I would encourage people to cover themselves as much as possible, but research shows that huge numbers of people could not get insurance cover—at least two or three have come to my Saturday morning surgeries. Part-time workers, those with temporary contracts, the self-employed or people approaching retirement age are denied such insurance cover. Increasing numbers of people are experiencing job insecurity, so we must tackle that problem.
Many people cannot move to a room in the private rented sector, not because of high rents—although those affect some people—but because of the deposit that is required. Many local authorities and charities have set up good rent deposit schemes, which lend deposit money to people who cannot find it. The Environment Select Committee looked into the problem of deposits, and we must consider the matter further. As tenants cannot get their deposits back, they sometimes leave the property without paying the last month's rent. That is a ridiculous way to carry on. We need to put in place a system that does away with rental deposits. Australia has a scheme that takes care of all the deposits. A proposal to solve the problem was made in the Committee considering the Housing Bill, although it was not ideal. The problem must be solved if we are to have a thriving private rented sector.
We must make better use of our property resources by discouraging under-occupation, ensuring that empty properties are used as homes, using brown-field sites, and accommodating people in shops and offices in town centres. Clearly, we cannot spread across the countryside. An important question for people who live in rural areas is what will happen under the right-to-buy proposal in the latest Housing Bill. Where will people in rural areas replace the social units that may be lost through that scheme, and how will social housing units in rural areas be replaced?
There has been a lot of agreement around the Chamber tonight—I say "around the Chamber" because I think that far too often we talk about this side and that side. There was also agreement around the Chamber during the passage of the Housing Bill and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. It was agreed that there is unmet housing need, but there was disagreement about the level. One of the problems is that the Government are always on the lower end of everything, not the top end—although they do not always have to be at the top end. The Select Committee believes that the Government are hitting far too low.

Mr. Thomason: The hon. Lady's assessment of the situation assumes that there will be no private sector investment in rented accommodation. Does she feel that there is no contribution to be made by the private sector?

Mrs. Maddock: I did not realise that I was being incoherent. I have been talking at some length about the private rented sector and about how important it is. I believe that it should exist and that we should do things to enable people to get into it. As a party, in the past we have supported various tax benefits and schemes to enable people to rent properties out and to make renting much more of a business.

Mr. Thomason: rose—

Mrs. Maddock: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I want to progress. I have said quite a lot about the private rented sector, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know more, I can recommend quite a lot of our documents to him and he can read them at his leisure. If he orders them and pays for them at Cowley street, they will be the genuine thing—they will have been passed by our members at our party conferences.
There is agreement about better use of sites and better use of buildings, but there is not agreement about how much investment we should put into it. Over the years, Governments have encouraged local authorities and everyone else to use sites and to bring properties back, and they have set up wonderful schemes that go for only a year and are then changed. I would like to see some long-term thinking in this regard.
Most hon. Members agree that we need to plan for demographic change, but the question is how much and for how long. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that he was disappointed that we were not looking ahead to 2011 and 2021 in relation to housing need. That is not easy to do, but we should be looking at it and making estimates. If we can encourage people to look that far ahead, they might focus on the short term as well.
It is agreed that we need flexibility—people need to be able to move in and out of the private sector. However, there is not always agreement on how that should be done. We also need investment, and I am not sure where the Government stand on this. The Government always ask the Opposition where they are going to get investment from, but they do not say where their investment will come from.
We need to use the money that is locked up in councils in capital receipts but, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, that will not solve all the problems. To get more money into housing, we need to recognise that

putting capital into bricks and mortar is a good investment. If we continue to account in a way that means that, every year, we have to hit the public sector borrowing requirement, which does not separate capital and revenue, we shall be in this mess for ever. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, I know that other Labour Members recognise it, and I hope that we can convince other hon. Members of the need for it. Studies have shown that that will bring more money into housing—not just public money but private money. We all want to see that happen.
There is disagreement about how we should deal with those matters, and about who should deal with them. I believe in local control. I recognise that the Government have put a lot of time and money into schemes that hon. Members have talked about tonight. In my role as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on housing, I try to get out and see what is happening in the country. I know that there are good regeneration schemes—there just are not enough. As we have heard, the schemes that are in place are good but so many other people need their homes to be improved.
Local authorities are in the best position to know what they need in their area. I would like the Government to keep a less tight rein on who will get the money and enable local councils to invest in their areas. During the debate on the recent housing legislation, we spoke about the need to allow local authorities to get private money. If they know what the need is, and if there are regulations to ensure that that spending does not go through the roof, we shall get more sensible investment and some of the severe need will be met.
A home is the key anchor for successful individuals and families, and that is why we cannot afford to keep missing the target when it comes to meeting housing need. There is evidence that Europe and Scandinavia—I have lived in Sweden—invest more than the United Kingdom. We have to invest more. Successful individuals and families mean successful businesses and communities, and that means a successful country.
My greatest sorrow is that this year we had the opportunity to move forward on this when we debated the two housing Bills. I regret that, although there were some improvements in some areas, we have moved the goalposts—we did not create any more units to meet the need that we are discussing tonight. Until we can all come to an agreement about that, we shall come back here and carp about unmet housing need.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I am grateful to the Government for finding time for us to have this important debate on housing need. The Environment Select Committee's report on the subject was the result of a major inquiry into an important matter of social and environmental concern. It is good that we now have the opportunity for a wider debate on the Floor of the House. I welcome the chance to discuss the work of Select Committees in this way.
The Environment Select Committee's report examined the way in which the Government assess future housing need and prepare themselves to meet the challenge of housing the nation within the framework of the planning system and their overall environmental objectives. I shall focus on meeting housing need and its impact on the


countryside. Housing policy has to be seen very much within the wider environmental context. New housing development is responsible for a greater loss of countryside than any other single factor. Hon. Members would agree that new housing seems to upset constituents more than any other local environmental issue.
Britain has undergone, and is still undergoing, profound social and demographic changes, which are bound to have a significant effect on housing in the future. Every reliable survey indicates that the population and the number of households are growing. There is bound to be a consequent need for new homes—particularly for affordable new homes. The Government have to assess the likely need for social housing in the future, and to ensure that their planning policies take account of that and of increased demand in the private sector for new homes.
In the past, the Department of the Environment and local authorities have sought to make this sort of estimate, mainly on the basis of household projections. However, household projections are notoriously unreliable and difficult. Indeed, several of the Environment Select Committee's witnesses questioned whether household projections were the best basis on which to assess either the need for social housing at the national level or the requirements for additional housing land at the local level. They were right to question that—after all, household projections are not sensitive to local conditions or to the environmental implications of current planning policies. The use of household projections as a method of estimate fails to assess the nature rather than the numbers of housing need, especially the need for housing geared to specific needs. This is clearly a major problem at a time of such enormous demographic change, particularly with the growth of the elderly population.
Housing projections have been, and are, used to define the scale of overall housing requirements. They dominate the preparation of regional planning guidance and development plans. However, they are not policy neutral: they are the major tool used by the building lobby to bludgeon the Government into releasing more land for development. We need to base our housing requirements and policies on a wider set of objectives than demographics and a highly contentious and unreliable system of projections.
Therefore, I warmly welcome the Environment Committee's recommendation that the Government and local authorities should attach much more importance to local environmental concerns, and much less importance to statistical projections of household formation when deciding upon building levels. The importance of that recommendation cannot be underestimated.
There is massive pressure for new housing development on green-field sites in the countryside, on the edges of towns and villages, and on every available strip of open land. That pressure is widely resented by people all over the country, whether they live in towns or in the countryside. They realise that, left unchecked, it would swamp rural England and destroy our countryside heritage.
We have a magnificent rural heritage. Last summer, I walked across the north of England from Scarborough, up the coast to Whitby and down to Blackpool. I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish

(Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Environment Committee, is also a keen walker. Anyone who goes into the countryside and sees what a magnificent place England is—particularly the north—will realise what a great heritage we have to pass on to our children. That, more than anything else, is the jewel of our national heritage, and we must treasure it.
However, every year we lose 11,000 hectares of countryside to urban development—most of which is new housing. A recent report in The Daily Telegraph claimed that unpublished Government research predicted that an area of rural land the size of greater London would be urbanised by 2016 at a rate of development one third higher than that experienced in the 1980s, during a peak period of private sector housebuilding. By 2016, there may be as many as 4 million new households in England if current demographic trends continue.
We have not begun to pay enough attention to the consequences of simply building houses to meet those trends. Those consequences are horrifying. If current rates of development continue, 20 per cent. of England will be urban by 2050. That would be a terrible legacy for our children. It would be an environmental nightmare and a betrayal of the greatest treasure in our children's inheritance: England itself.
That would also be utterly pointless, because, while demographic trends are bound to create a strain, there is no need to try to solve the problem by releasing more countryside for building. Much more can be done to meet housing needs from the existing stock of buildings. The vast bulk of future housing provision already exists, and new development adds only about 1 per cent. to existing stock each year. There is significant under-use of the existing housing stock. During the Committee's inquiry, I realised that little research has been done in that area. However, it is clear that almost 800,000 homes are currently empty.
Therefore, a widespread programme of new housebuilding, coupled with the relaxation of planning controls, would clearly be an absolute disaster. We must respond to the challenge of meeting future housing needs in ways other than simply taking account of statistical projections. We must attach more importance to local environmental concerns, such as those expressed by the residents of Cleveleys on the edge of my constituency. They are objecting to the development of open farmland on College farm between Cleveleys and Fleetwood. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look carefully at that matter when he receives the residents' representations.
We must encourage local authorities to prepare local planning strategies that are based on the capacity of their environment to accommodate new development, rather than simply imagining that the countryside is a renewable resource which can be squandered at will to meet the demands of the building industry. Against that background, it is clear that the Government will have to plan for a significant increase in the demand for social housing.
The Environment Committee report is correct to highlight that aspect, and to stress the need to plan much more carefully for special housing needs. The members of the Committee were unanimous in the view that the Government must provide more social housing if we are to meet future needs.
The Government have already done much to provide affordable homes for families on low incomes. They spent £5 billion on grants for social housing in 1994–95. That enables 300,000 families to find homes in the social rented sector each year, and has provided an extra 72,000 affordable homes on average in each of the past three years. That is an impressive record, upon which the Government must build. Much of the demand can be met through the better use of existing sites, and the Environment Committee recommended increasing the share of new development in towns and cities.
I mentioned that about 800,000 homes are currently empty. Of those, 700,000 are in the private sector. The Government are committed to reducing the number of empty homes in England from 4 to 3 per cent. They have encouraged people to make use of empty homes and dwelling places through measures such as removing the need for planning permission when converting space above shops into housing; by encouraging the conversion of older offices into flats: by making it easier for, and more attractive to, people to become landlords; and by creating the conditions for a healthy housing market so that empty homes can be sold.
The Government are also disposing of surplus accommodation among their empty stock. In 1994–95, nearly 4,000 homes were brought back into use or resold. They have gradually made it more attractive for landlords to let empty properties. Most importantly, the Government are trying to encourage the construction of houses on urban, as opposed to rural, sites. Last year's housing White Paper set a target that 50 per cent. of new houses should be built on land previously in urban use. I understand that that target is being met, but I do not think that it goes far enough.
That was also the Environment Committee's view: we concluded that every effort must be made to increase the scale of re-use of brown-field sites that had been built on previously. The report says that the 50 per cent. target can be met and improved in the future. I hope that the Minister will take the recommendation particularly seriously, because that aim is realisable and will help to take pressure off the countryside.
A wider question, which the Environment Committee has addressed in previous inquiries—particularly in its examination of out-of-town shopping—is the quality of life in our inner cities and towns. It is not enough to respond to the challenge by developing brown-field sites—and I am sure that the Government will not respond in that way. As a nation and as a Government, we must do a great deal more to improve the quality of life in the urban environments in our towns and cities.
We cannot underestimate the challenge that faces us as we approach the 21st century. For many people, inner-city areas and towns are empty, desolate places of despair. Many towns in this country have been effectively abandoned. I believe that that is the great challenge facing the Government and the Department as we approach the 21st century.
The Committee has travelled to other parts of the world, including other countries in the European Community, for previous inquiries. Members of the Committee have seen some imaginative responses to the challenges of urban planning, which have encouraged people back to town centres and made them attractive, pleasant places in which to live and work. Some towns in

this country that have good, well-run local authorities have gone a long way to meeting that challenge; other towns are an absolute disgrace. As a nation, that must be our top priority. I know that the Minister is extremely concerned about that, and I hope that it is a matter to which the Environment Committee will turn its attention in future.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I want to place on record my appreciation of the Select Committee's important work on housing. The Department of the Environment has such a huge variety of work that it was good for the Select Committee to concentrate on an issue such as housing, which is so central to our constituency concerns. In particular, as has become apparent in the debate, the work of our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), was much appreciated by all concerned.
When our inquiry began, it appeared to be dominated by statistics and the need to determine whether the Government's statistics or those of the former Government adviser, Alan Holmans, in his research for the Joseph Rowntree trust, whose figures suggested that the Government's were too low, were more applicable. However, as the inquiry progressed, it became obvious that figures of housing demand and need are really people—old and young, families and households—and figures of housing supply. are really homes—homes in good and bad condition, new homes, old homes and flats in different areas.
Beyond those two statistics was another figure which perhaps we did not touch on enough, but which needs to be mentioned, and that is the number of people for whom the housing industry provides a livelihood in terms of jobs and training, including the professionals—architects, designers and surveyors.
It becomes clear that, when a country finds the right balance between housing need in the form of people and housing supply in the form of homes, the result is—the most important factor of all—stable communities benefiting from independence and self-esteem. As people move through life, from youth, to having families, to old age, housing is probably the most important factor in their lives.
Therefore, it is important that the Government should take seriously the Committee's core recommendation outlined in paragraphs 251 and 252 of its report. It says:
the Government's estimate of the need for social housing is below all the estimates produced by respected organisations and academics.
Therefore, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that
it would only be prudent for the Government to assume that in determining policy, including the allocation of public expenditure over the next few years, it ought to provide for a figure at a higher point of its present estimated range".
I want to touch on the various groups and practical issues which emerged from the Select Committee's approach. We need to ensure that, by housing need, we mean people. I welcome the element of the Government's response, which suggests that they will undertake further research into the demographic implications of the different groups of people that make up housing demand and need.
The briefing for today's debate from the Anchor housing association states that, by the year 2011, an additional 300,000 people over the age of 80 will require housing. At present, pensioners comprise one third of all households, and the majority of those are in rented accommodation, so what older people will need in the next decade or two is fundamental to our consideration.
I think of Mrs. Hulbert, whom I visited at the weekend on her 100th birthday, who looked no older than 81 or 82. She lives on her own in a small terraced house in my constituency, fairly independently. Such independence, with some support where needed, is a factor which should be at the top of all hon. Members' agendas.
It also emerged from the evidence of some housing associations that, although people are living longer, the period during which they are severely disabled and so need adaptations is not necessarily getting longer. During the next 10 or 20 years, older people will increasingly want their independence of living. Moreover, current trends of increasing separation and divorce, which I deplore, will increase the need and demand among older people in society for independent living.
Most Members of Parliament will have experienced distressing cases where a local authority has told an elderly couple in an inflexible way that the only dwelling to which they are entitled is a bed-sitter or a one-bedroomed bungalow. When first faced with such a situation, it is difficult to ascertain what the problem is. Then it emerges that they have not slept in the same room for many years. For such people to be told that they are entitled only to a one-bedroomed house because they are elderly, a pensioner or slightly disabled is not a satisfactory way in which to meet their needs.
The same care is required when addressing the housing need's of younger people. I was disappointed at the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations for younger people. We saw some excellent examples of vulnerable younger people being given the opportunity of independence in rented accommodation, and the effect of that on their rehabilitation in society.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Lady will remember our visit to the young people's accommodation. However, did she not share my concern that the young people seemed to have little incentive eventually to leave that accommodation and stand on their own feet? The impression seemed to be conveyed to them that it was all right to stay there, playing the guitar, doing their painting or whatever they were doing, as long as they liked.

Mrs. Jackson: I remember that the young person who spent a lot of time painting did not have another job, but he was, to all intents and purposes, working hard at achieving the most important thing that he wanted to do in his life, which he would not have been able to do without independent accommodation that he could feel was his and which gave him the space and opportunity to do it.
Let us move on from individual cases to think about most younger people and the importance to them—certainly the younger people I have known from my family and friends—of their move into independent accommodation. The idea that any bar should be placed on opportunities for

younger people to take the chance to move away from their parents and set up home independently is very retrogressive, so I am not happy about the Government's response, in which they seem to say that they do not accept that younger people—even young adults who share a home with friends or families and say that they would rather live in separate accommodation—can be considered to be in housing need.
Moving on from younger people as they move through life, the other point raised by Alan Holmans, which the Government need to address seriously, is the trend for young people—particularly young professional people who feel that they might need to move away to follow their profession—to move into rented accommodation for a longer time rather than become owner-occupiers, and all the signs in the housing market at present are that that trend will continue. Owner-occupation is no longer seen as a financial investment for young couples, who would rather move into a house where they know that they have the flexibility to move in or out of the area when they want.
That takes us further through life, to families. We cannot underestimate the effect that the trend of single families, single dwellers, people who have separated, will place on housing need and demand. It is quite unacceptable that people in unhappy situations together should, because of pressure of housing, find it impossible to get out and live separately.
Adequate provision of housing to meet demand is a matter not just of housing policy but of social policy. It is a matter of supporting, at each stage in their lives, people who are vulnerable and who need that extra independence.
Before I finish, I shall say a little about the other side of our inquiry—housing supply. Our report said many useful things about house design and the condition of housing, and those points were touched on by many Conservative Members. I enjoyed the speech of the hon.Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) about his recollections of the Kelvin housing estate in Sheffield, which has come and gone.
Adequate design and condition are part and parcel of the provision of adequate housing. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Bill this Session, but I was a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Grants' Construction and Regeneration Bill, which made some interesting points about unfit housing—a matter that the Select Committee felt important—where renovation was required to bring the properties up to standard.
The concern that Opposition Members feel about the long-term effect of changing mandatory grants to discretionary grants will return to haunt the housing industry. The change will not put a penny more into renovation and the adequacy of house condition, particularly in the private rented sector.
Hon. Members who made points about void rates and vacant rates should remember that the void rate in the private sector is four times that in the public or housing association sector. If we really want to address the problem of using all the empty properties, we must address the issue of voids in the private sector.
I appreciated the comments by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), because my constituency, being on the edge of Sheffield, covers land that is in high demand for housing and of extra-high demand for housing developers, who press at every opportunity to build there


rather than on the areas in and around the city of Sheffield, where there are industrial complexes that are genuine brown-field sites, on which it would be most appropriate for houses to be built. But for housing development to take place on those sites, extra resources need to be provided, through the single regeneration budget, estate action and a combination of housing associations, housing corporations and local authorities.
The Government should take steps to achieve a co-ordinated programme, not only to realise the 50 per cent. target for new housing on brown-field sites but to expand on that. However, it will require clear guidance to the planning authorities to ensure that planning guidance notes work in that direction as well.
I end by quoting two points, one of which came from the House Builders Federation; the other came from the general secretary of the builders' union. It is interesting that they totally agree. The House Builders Federation told our Committee:
The main reason for today's housing shortage is that, during the 1980s, approximately 1 million too few houses were built in the social and private sectors to meet the needs of the growing numbers of households during the decade. In fact, contrary to popular myth, far fewer homes were built in that period than in any decade since the 1940s.
The general secretary of the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians made the point recently:
Half a million building workers have lost their jobs since the recession
in house building.
Keeping these building workers idle will lose over £11 billion in potential national output.
because it costs the Treasury
an average of £9,000 in benefits per unemployed person".
Many years ago, when I was at the campaigning stage of my political career, I was involved in the development of a campaign for homes and jobs, which centred on the fact that building workers are needed to build homes and the fact that homes give people security and independence. Most people want both those needs to be dealt with, and they should be the goal of any proper housing policy. That would make a big difference to society.

Mr. Michael Stephen: The Select Committee's inquiry into housing need was one of the most interesting and, I hope, useful that it has undertaken since I became a member in 1994. I pay tribute to the work of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—not only in connection with the inquiry, but for the way in which he presides over our proceedings, with tact and humour, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
We must, at the outset, draw a clear distinction between housing need and housing demand. The fact that a person may want a house—or a bigger house, or another house—does not mean that he is in need. In paragraph 203 of our report, we spoke of the danger of acceding to housing demand rather than housing need. We noted that, in its consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", the Department of the Environment had
voiced apprehension about: 'the impact on the environment of an apparently insatiable demand for additional housing; future generations may not thank us if we continue to devote scarce national resources to producing ever more dwellings'.

Obviously, if a person has no home at all or is living in accommodation that lacks basic amenities, the community as a whole has a responsibility to do something about it; but is the fact that someone does not get on with his parents, or the fact that a husband does not get on with his wife, a reason for saying that the rest of the community must bear the burden of providing him with a home? When we can do that, we should, but if the cost is building on green-field sites, we are faced with a delicate balance. On the one hand, there is demand—perhaps strong demand—for a house; on the other hand, is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a beautiful meadow that the forces of nature and the activities of man may have taken a hundred years to develop? Is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a piece of woodland that provides a habitat for wildlife, to meet housing demand? We need only pose that question to realise that the answer must be no.
Then we come to the "top-down versus bottom-up" argument, to which the Committee devoted considerable attention. Should we rely on national statistics, say, "Yes, these houses must be built," and then hand out to county councils and, through them, district councils the number of houses for which land must be provided? I think not. Paragraph 217 of our report says:
Some witnesses expressed concern about the 'top-down' nature of the way that housing need is presently assessed; using national projections as a base and then extrapolating local targets from them, they argued, involved playing a sort of 'numbers game' at the local level which did not necessarily reflect local needs and conditions.
A few paragraphs later, we say:
Early in the inquiry the Committee attempted to obtain bottom-up estimates of housing requirements for each area in England, in order to compare the national total of such figures with national projections. We were told these figures were not available, that each set of local figures was arrived at in different ways. This proved to be the case.
That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
As is explained in paragraph 222,
We eventually received figures from the Department showing the provision for housing made in each local plan and in regional plans. These suggested that local plans are heavily influenced by the 'top-down' approach, an impression which was confirmed by written evidence which stressed both the extent to which local plan requirements were the outcome of negotiation within the regional figures and the primary importance of the Department of the Environment's household projections in determining those regional figures.
I suggest that the Government's national projections are much too important a factor in the planning process, and that the capacity of individual localities to bear the strain in terms of cost, land availability and the environment may not be accorded the importance that it deserves.
In my county of Sussex, the environmental issue that concerns local people perhaps more than any other is the constant pressure on every little piece of open space for housing. In Rustington, in my constituency, a large tract of land has just become available because of the projected closure of the Horticultural Research Institute. The danger is that that site will be covered with houses. There may well be housing demand, but is it right for the site to be covered with houses when almost the entire coastal strip that comprises my constituency has, since the second world war, been built up to a point at which almost all the character of the small towns and villages that once existed has been destroyed? Fortunately, not all of it has


been destroyed: in many parts of my constituency, it is still possible to catch a glimpse of what it was like before the builders arrived.
In the years since 1945, we in Britain have put far too many of our national resources into bricks and mortar—money that should, perhaps, have been invested in productive industry. We have, I think, employed too many of our people in building when they could perhaps have been employed in other jobs that would have contributed more to the country's ability to pay its way in the world. Fortunately, because of the economic policies that the Government have pursued since 1979, our economy is in better shape than ever before. We are now forging ahead in comparison with the French and the Germans. But we had a legacy to deal with—a long legacy of neglect and misdirected investment, which began with the Labour Government of 1945.
There are far too many empty houses. It may not be widely known that there are far more empty houses and flats than there are homeless families. I pay tribute to the work of the Empty Homes Agency, one of whose representatives we met during our inquiry. He took us to see empty Government, local authority and health authority housing. The amount of potentially usable housing that was simply lying empty—largely, from my recollection, because of the dead hand of bureaucracy—was scandalous. I am glad that the Government are now dealing with that—or, at least, that the Ministry of Defence is. I hope that other Departments will do the same, for, on this small, overcrowded island, we cannot afford to allow many houses to remain empty.
Nor can we afford to leave houses that could be used to house families lying empty because there is no money to refurbish them. Under the old system, mandatory grants meant that money was sometimes given to people who could well afford to renovate the houses themselves. However, I wonder whether we have the balance right today. Is the otherwise admirable policy of subsidising the individual rather than the bricks and mortar achieving our objective of ensuring that dilapidated houses are refurbished in a timely manner? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can develop the Government's thinking on that.
Many buildings in need of refurbishment are listed buildings. I have received many complaints that, in the discharge of their responsibilities, the listed building authorities have only one word in their vocabulary—no. Why cannot, for example, Victorian additions be removed and houses restored to how they were in the Georgian era or whenever they were built? Logically, that should be permitted, but all too often, perfectly sensible alteration or refurbishment to listed buildings is not permitted. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can examine whether those powers need to be exercised more flexibly.
Brown-field sites have been mentioned several times—they are of immense importance. It is absurd, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, that green-field sites on the fringe of her constituency—many of which are beautiful, as the Committee saw when we visited the Peak district—should be built on when there is industrial dereliction in the centre of Sheffield that needs to be redeveloped. If permission were not granted for people to build on green-field sites on the fringe of Sheffield, they would have no alternative, if t0hey wanted

to build in Sheffield at all, but to use brown-field sites. The planning system has a major role to play in promoting such development.
In some areas, we must accept that housing need, as opposed to demand, is so great that new housing must be built. Is the right way to meet that demand to expand existing villages and market towns, or is it better to build new villages or towns in places close to motorway junctions or railways, where proper infrastructure is available? Before I came to this place, I was a county councillor for a rural division of Essex called Dunmow, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar from his days as a Member of the European Parliament.
The question arose whether additional houses should be provided for people who were going to work at Stansted airport, that big white elephant in the middle of Essex. I argued that if the airport operators wished to employ vast numbers people to serve their businesses, they should bear the cost. They should bus the people from the relatively nearby communities where they already lived and not expect the people of rural Essex, and of the nation, to bear the environmental burden of covering more and more meadows and woodlands with houses. Even worse, the character of Dunmow, an ancient town of 5,000 people, would be completely destroyed by the addition of the 900 houses that were proposed.
I managed to persuade my Conservative colleagues on the county council to reduce the number to 450, but an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Labour party reversed the decision and Dunmow was saddled with 900 houses. I fear that the unique character and charm of that small town in Essex, which took perhaps 1,000 years to develop, will be destroyed because we, the custodians of the planning system today, did not have the foresight to realise what we were doing.
The situation is getting worse. I read in the newspaper only the other day that more houses will be required to feed this white elephant. Small villages such as Takeley and Little Dunmow will be smothered by this behemoth to provide housing. That is wrong. If the housing is needed, which I doubt, new towns and villages should be built. Ancient settlements that have taken hundreds of years to develop should not be sacrificed. They can never be replaced.
It is a question not only of covering green fields with buildings, but of the quality of the buildings. We have only to visit any small or large settlement to see the depredations wrought by architects and town planners since 1950 or thereabouts. Some of the worst excrescences and eyesores have been built by local authorities and central Government—tax offices, hospitals and schools built with no imagination and with no thought about how they would fit into their environment.

Sir Irvine Patrick: Marsham street.

Mr. Stephen: That is a good example. When I was briefly personal assistant to the late Nicholas Ridley, he took me to a window in his Marsham street office and said, "This is the best view in London because from here, you cannot see Marsham street." I am glad that it is to be razed to the ground. The sooner the better.
I entirely approve of the Government's policy of shifting the burden of providing public rented housing to housing associations, which have done a magnificent job.


Since 1988, with money supplied by central Government, they have built 67,000 more houses. We constantly hear from the Labour party, and no doubt we shall hear it again when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) winds up, about capital receipts. The capital receipts from the sale of council housing can be spent by local authorities if they are debt-free. Even if they are not debt-free, 25 per cent. can be spent. The problem is that the local authorities that have the receipts are often not those that need the money to build more housing.
As local authority spending amounts to about 25 per cent. of all public expenditure, no Chancellor of the Exchequer could ignore it in planning his inflation strategy. If local authorities were at liberty to release the receipts into the money supply, the Chancellor would not be able to keep control of inflation.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in a minute, because I am about to finish. There would, of course, be no capital receipts at all if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats had had their way.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) for having misled him by not having previously risen, but the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will be delayed for a little more than a minute.
Yesterday morning, I was on the unfinished ramparts of James Stirling's great building at No. 1, Poultry, with Lord Palumbo, its owner, and a bagpiper and drums. A tattered Union Jack was flying from a nearby building. There was a strong echo of the siege of Lucknow. Earlier there was a reference to this part of the parliamentary week being a black hole. I realise that that meant an astronomical black hole, not a historical one. I have not felt during this debate that I was in a black hole of any sort.
I shall try to make the shortest speech of the debate. I declare what 1 might call a non-interest as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, a role which in fact precludes me from playing any parliamentary part on its behalf. I am not a member of the Select Committee, which is why I waited until all my hon. Friends who serve on it had been able to speak. I am not remotely an expert on the subject. I compliment the Select Committee arid its Chairman on its report, which is so clear that one was able to understand it, even during the debate. It was certainly a stimulus to revisiting the evidence during the recess.
In the same spirit, I compliment the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on his masterly and even-handed introduction to this evening's debate, which made it easier for someone like me.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said that too much was said about the two different sides of the Chamber. In a mischievous spirit, I say to her that her party has always adopted the policy of running with the hare and apologising to the hounds when they caught up, so both sides of the Chamber would feature in every speech made by a Liberal Democrat.
Our former colleague Sir Carol Mather, the hon. Member for Esher, who once commanded a battalion of the Welsh Guards, found himself in Moscow, sitting next to a senior officer in the Russian armed forces who asked him his view of the cold war at a time when it was very cold. Carol Mather gave a totally predictable reply and the colonel said, "Colonel Mather, you are making a constituency speech." Carol acknowledged that that was an extremely good analysis of the speech that he had made.
Like the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), I shall draw on constituency experience during my remarks, which will inevitably be discursive. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) said that city centres were cold and desolate. I regard it as a given that we would seek to see residents within them. The homeless necessarily play a role in my constituency—that is a characteristic of inner-city seats.
I wish to dwell for a moment on the relationship between the homeless and residents. When Sir Freddie Laker erected his tented city in Pimlico a little after I became the Member of Parliament for that area, I was asked at the Civil Aviation Authority inquiry whether I was in favour of it moving somewhere else. I said that that was the last thing that I wanted it to do because that would simply transfer the problem to another part of London and another set of residents. There is a genuine problem involved in providing supportive institutional facilities in residential locations. I realise the need to put such facilities near the problems that they seek to solve because one can only ask people to attend them voluntarily and there is no power of coercion. But there is no question but that such facilities impinge on the residential areas around them. We must find new vehicles and devices of education and consultation so that we can carry residents with us on homeless matters, just as we have to on heritage issues.
I shall reiterate briefly the point that I made about day centres, and the need to ensure that they are comprehensive, during the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill, of which a number of us are veterans. I salute the foyer idea for the young homeless, but I am conscious that the last 10 per cent. of capital funding is proving difficult to find in foyer after foyer. If the money is not found, the foyers will carry severe capital costs thereafter. As many people write to Members of Parliament expressing concern about the homeless, I make an incidental appeal: one way that the general public can provide help is to ensure that foyers receive that last element.
I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to defer conclusions on changes to housing benefit regulations as they refer to service charges because of the social considerations that apply, however homelessness is defined.
Paragraph 265 of the Select Committee's report refers to housing stock in central London. My constituency has lost 1,000 electors a year every year for, I think, the past 46. That is not just the spirit of Abercrombie—it is not slum clearance. The reason for that loss involves indigenous people moving out, company flats, foreigners and, now, absentee owners, who purchase flats as investments for partial residence during the year because London is recognised as having political security.
I am all in favour of the open society and I would not seek to prevent absentee owners acquiring those properties, but there is a risk that the city will lose its heart in the process. There is a further problem of leaseholders' enfranchisement and the risk of slowing it down. If the absentee owners are not present, they cannot be approached in order to be part of the qualified majority necessary to secure the freehold. That is ironic because they do not, on the whole, understand the leasehold principle; they are more interested in acquiring the property than in reading the small print of their contract—but they would like to avail themselves of the freehold if they could.
Holiday lets represent another form of housing that is taken out of normal occupation. They represent a separate irony as they are flats that are in continuous occupation by foreigners—often owned by foreign investors. They are not empty—they contribute to the city's liveliness—but tend to be vastly overcrowded, with adverse consequences for their permanent neighbours. There is a need for local authorities to have resources necessary to monitor them. There is no question but that there is tourism pressure on the centre and, as we were saying in the seminar on London's future at the Guild hall last Friday, the more we can encourage development outside the inner core of the city, the better.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Health and after he had answered 50 Adjournment debates on hospital closures, wrote a spoof parody of an Adjournment speech by a Minister on hospital closures, which included the memorable phrase in characteristic dress:
I now turn to the police raid on the nurses' home.
I now turn to paragraph 272 of the Select Committee's report, which relates to developments in Birmingham and bringing commercial property back into residential use.
I have had a personal interest in the matter since the late 1950s; it was initially derived from the inner-city area in Philadelphia. Ed Bacon, the father of Kevin Bacon the film actor, was the chief planning officer of Philadelphia and the author of a very good book called, "Design In Cities"—he was a rare example of his profession in that he featured on the front cover of Time magazine. He and the late Oskar Stonorov, an equally rare example of an architect who was admired by both architects and planners, were very much involved in the revival and renewal of downtown Philadelphia.
I am delighted by the Birmingham experience, to which the Select Committee referred. I am also delighted at the prediction that 40,000 potential homes in central London will come back into use out of office accommodation, of which at least half are thought to be in my constituency.
Paragraph 271 relates to living over the shop. That subject has also been one of my interests for a considerable time, although it arose later. My interest in the subject initially arose in Bath during the 1970s, where the issue posed an acute problem. Almost as soon as I became a Member of Parliament in my present constituency, a constituent in Soho, who is still my constituent, interested me in the subject. I remember giving lunch to him and Sir Hugh Rossi, who was the shadow spokesman for the position of my right hon.

Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration—what a pleasure it is to call him my right hon. Friend—in the far-off days when the Conservative party was in opposition. The development has had a long germination, but I am pleased by its progress.
Finally, on a personal and idiosyncratic footnote, I refer to paragraphs 254 and 256, which relate to the standards and quality in buildings. I am chairman of the Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation—COTAC—and I declare my interest. I run the slight risk of being ruled out of order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though, before you took the Chair, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish brought Stonehenge into the debate. I am not sure whether he remembers the very good spoof by Frank Muir of the Architects Journal interviewing a caveman on what he thought about the development of henges as an addition to the housing stock. The caveman thought that they would be draughty and was doubtful whether they would catch on.
COTAC is preoccupied with heritage craftsmen and their supply. I make no apology for raising that, as the majority of listed buildings are private houses. A rough and ready calculation is that half the construction industry takes the form of the refurbishment of buildings rather than new build. About 5 per cent. of that is heritage work, but it concerns more than the 2.5 per cent. of the labour force that straight arithmetic suggests, because the activity is labour-intensive, and, therefore, in COTAC's view thoroughly worth encouraging. There is a problem with apprenticeships. Since the move of builders and contractors into management, because they no longer employ apprentices, and because subcontractors are often too small to do so, it is tricky to make certain that the supply is sustained.
I shall have stayed within the limits of brevity if I make one final plea. It concerns the mild potential conflict between conservation officers and surveyors who are employed by people who are thinking of buying houses. Conservation officers are perfectly properly very preoccupied with ensuring that listed buildings should be repaired in a manner that is totally in line with conservation. It is irritating for the owner thereafter to hear the surveyor for the person who is thinking of buying the house say that the work has been done in a manner that is not wholly satisfactory, when, in fact, the owner of the house had no choice but to do it in the way in which the conservation officer required.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I declare an interest. I act as a consultant to HACAS Ltd., the social housing consultancy.
It is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider the important issue of housing need. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spelled out lucidly and very well the main concerns that were identified by the Select Committee, which he chairs, in its report on housing need that was published earlier in the year. Several hon. Members have contributed very useful insights, largely drawn from a range of differing constituency experiences. It is a comment on the natural ingenuity of hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South


(Mr. Brooke), that those constituency interests have managed to embrace Russian generals, Philadelphia planners, cavemen and Stonehenge. It is remarkable what can be brought into constituency interests.
I was intrigued by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), both of whom spoke about the much-hated Kelvin flats. I had the pleasure of being in Sheffield a year or so ago when they were in the process of being demolished. I can testify that the community shared that pleasure at the disappearance of an utterly loathed blot on the Sheffield landscape—a monument to the kind of housing that we should never allow to be built again.
The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) raised the issue of capital receipts. Since I was unable to intervene, he may like to think about this question: if it is financially irresponsible for a Chancellor to allow the release of capital receipts, why did he support his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in releasing 100 per cent. of capital receipts between November 1992 and March 1994? Indeed, during that period, the Government allowed local authorities to use 100 per cent. of their capital receipts for housing investment.

Mr. Stephen: The answer is that the limited release of capital receipts was consistent with the Government's economic strategy at the time.

Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He will know that that release of capital receipts encouraged recovery in the housing market and achieved a level of output of social housing that was within the range that most experts believe is necessary to meet housing needs. Since the Government reversed that policy in April 1994, the housing market has once again been in extreme difficulties and social housing output has fallen to levels far below every reasonable estimate of need—a point to which we shall return. l am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, all members of the Select Committee and their advisers on an excellent report. It makes an important and significant contribution to our understanding of the many complex issues involved in assessing the demand for housing and the scale of housing need.
Few people can feel comfortable about the state of housing in England today. Our country's performance in responding to the many housing problems that we face has in recent years been woefully inadequate. To summarise: we face an acute problem of homelessness. Local authorities in England last year accepted 120,000 households as homeless, but that includes only those officially recorded. It is a sobering comment on the official statistics that the vast majority of people who sleep rough, huddling in doorways under blankets or in cardboard boxes, never feature in the official statistics because they have not approached the local authority and have therefore not been recorded.
With repossessions continuing at a rate of 1,000 per week, the problem of homelessness is clearly impacting on the owner-occupier market as much as anywhere. That contributes to the continuing problem of insecurity that overhangs the market.
Although there have been some encouraging signs of recovery in the first six months of 1996, the market remains in a fragile state. Recovery is patchy, and is certainly not feeding through into any substantial nationwide increase in housing starts. The figures for the three months ending May 1996 show new starts 9 per cent. down on the equivalent period last year. While the output of new homes for sale is down, the comparable figures for new output of rented homes for those in social need is nothing short of catastrophic.
Councils have to all intents and purposes ceased to be able to build homes, and housing association output, down by 22 per cent. over the first four months of this year, shows the drastic impact of two successive steep cuts in the Housing Corporation's budget. Consequently, over the past five years the annual output of new social housing has fallen to the lowest level since the end of the second world war.
At the same time, 1.5 million homes in England are still unfit for human habitation, with many others sub-standard in one way or another, with many desperately hard to keep warm in winter. The problems are found in all tenures. While there are especially acute concentrations of properties in poor condition in the local authority and privately rented sectors, the largest number of sub-standard homes are owner-occupied. That fact was brought out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) when he spoke of the many owner-occupied properties in poor condition in his constituency.
That necessarily quick snapshot of housing conditions in Britain in 1996 is shocking enough, but even more shocking is the inadequacy of current Government programmes designed to tackle the problem. By international comparison, our performance is nothing short of disgraceful. We lag right at the bottom of the list of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmemt countries in terms of housing investment. We spend only about 3 per cent. of our GDP on housing, whereas comparable European countries of a similar size, such as Germany, France and Italy, are spending between 5 and 6 per cent. of their GDP on housing investment.
Perhaps it is asking too much to expect the Government to admit those failings openly and publicly, but at least we have the right to expect a realistic and informed appraisal of the extent of unmet housing needs.

Mr. Thomason: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is telling us that his party's policy is to release the capital receipts held by local government to address all those alleged ills? If so, can he confirm that it is also his party's policy at least to maintain the level of housing investment at its current level, so he is thereby making a substantial spending pledge? Does he have the agreement of his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet in that pledge?

Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, who must have been asleep for much of the past four years, that the Labour party has made a clear commitment and pledge to release on a phased basis the capital receipts estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing at £5 billion—money that is currently unavailable for investment because of foolish Government restrictions. That commitment is shared by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and it will enable an incoming Labour


Government significantly to increase the output of housing for social need, of which there is a chronic shortage, as the hon. Gentleman will know full well from his involvement with the Select Committee's work.

Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I will make some progress first. But I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
It will come as a considerable surprise to those unfamiliar with the Government's neglect of housing to learn that between 1977, when the Labour Government published their comprehensive housing policy review, and 1995, there was no official published estimate of the scale of housing need in this country.
I always believe that it is right to give credit where credit is due, and the Minister now responsible for housing, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, should be congratulated because, unlike any of his Conservative predecessors, he has at least allowed departmental estimates of housing need to be brought into the public domain. That may have required a certain amount of pressure; it may have required repeated parliamentary questions to prompt that outcome. Nevertheless the figures were published, and we welcome that fact.
I wish that I could be as positive about the figures themselves, but they are far from adequate in most respects. Indeed, they revealed a process almost diametrically opposite to that which should inform policy making. Instead of starting with an impartial, objective appraisal of the full range of needs as a basis of reaching decisions on the necessary scale and type of investment, clearly the Government's objective has been to legitimise the current inadequate levels of investment by tailoring the figures to meet the anticipated level of new construction.
The Select Committee effectively demolished that charade. Its carefully considered and cogently argued report draws on evidence from leading experts to demonstrate conclusively that the Government's estimates are out of line with those of all other recognised authorities. Nor can the Government question the credentials of those authorities as foremost among them was Alan Holmans, research fellow at Cambridge university and until recently chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Holmans' evidence, which clearly impressed the Select Committee, demonstrates a need for new housing provision for social needs of around 117,000 homes a year over the 20-year period to 2011 if we are to provide adequately for the backlog of unmet needs, as well as the needs that will arise through normal demographic and social changes over the same period. That contrasts with a Department of the Environment estimate of a need of between 60,000 and 100,000 new lettings a year over the decade to 2001.
To add insult to injury, Government policy is predicated on a requirement to meet only the bottom end of that range—60,000 new lettings per year.
I regret to say that the Government's response to the Select Committee report published in May this year is simply inadequate. Its failure to address fundamental issues and its repeated use of feeble excuses for not

responding to the Select Committee's recommendations have rightly prompted disappointment and derision throughout the housing world. Its weakness is revealed as early as paragraph 5, where it becomes crystal clear that—as with the estimates of housing need published a year earlier—the Government are interested not in an objective and truthful picture of the expected scale of need, but rather in a cosmetic exercise designed to legitimise current levels of investment.
Paragraph 5 states:
The Government in deciding how much social housing to provide has to consider not just estimates of need for social housing, but also the appropriate balance between public and private provision for housing and the impact that a higher or lower level of provision may have on private supply of housing. Higher levels of provision of social housing could crowd out the reviving private rented sector and suppress growth in home ownership. The Government's aim therefore remains as stated in the Housing White Paper to provide additional social lettings in line with the lower end of the Government's range of estimates. Overall, there are choices to be made about how public money is spent, and estimates of need for social housing have to be balanced against competing demands for resources.
Let us analyse the three lines of defence offered by the Government. First, a value judgment about an appropriate balance between public and private sector provision is given greater importance than estimates of the need for social housing. That is little more than an admission that the Government's ideological prejudices are being allowed to override objective assessments of need.
Secondly, the Government advance the claim that increased provision of social housing could crowd out private lettings and suppress the growth in home ownership, with no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. Interestingly, elsewhere in the Government's response it is suggested that a revival in private renting might "compensate" for a decline in the growth of owner-occupation, but no fears are expressed that the process of reviving private renting might crowd out or suppress owner-occupation. The contrast between the language in those two passages is another telling illustration of the Government's outdated ideological fixation with the promotion of the private sector at the expense of the public sector.
The Government's third admission is that the amount of public money available will determine how much social housing can be provided—so much for the pretence that decisions on housing investment are being informed by estimates of need. It is the other way round. The acceptance of need is being informed by the available finance.

Mr. Stephen: Has the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), given the hon. Gentleman a blank cheque? If so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have made it clear that the Labour party is committed to a phased release of capital receipts, and we have repeated that commitment many times. It is not a blank cheque—it is a significant investment that will help


to get the unemployed back to work, building homes to meet our housing need. It will also ensure that we tackle some of the country's economic needs.

Mr. Elletson: Has the hon. Gentleman not admitted in the past that this scheme is not a no-cost option? What will that cost be, and what impact will the scheme have on council taxes?

Mr. Raynsford: I will tell the hon. Gentleman full well what the benefits will be: more homes for people in need, and more people back in work. The costs will be determined by the Labour Government when they are elected and when they decide on the phasing of the release of those receipts. I can assure him that the total sum of capital receipts is estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing to be £5 billion. We shall allow that money to be released on a phased basis, and the decision will be taken when we are in government.
Even the Government's inadequate estimate of the requirement of 60,000 new lettings a year may prove to be more than the Government, in their dying days, are capable of providing. As the report highlights in paragraphs 98 and 99, public expenditure on new social housing has been steadily reducing in recent years. The DOE's submission to the Committee showed the impact of this in a declining level of new lettings from 70,000 in 1995–96 to 58,000 in 1996–97 and 55,000 in 1997–98. That was based largely on the expected output from the Housing Corporation's programme agreed in February.
If, as is rumoured, the Housing Corporation budget—which has been cut savagely in each of the past two years—is raided once again by a Chancellor desperate to cut public expenditure to make room for pre-election tax cuts, it is difficult to see how even the woefully inadequate target of 60,000 can be achieved. I invite the Minister to come clean to the House when he responds. I understand that he attended the Cabinet this morning, so he should be in a good position to tell us what is in store. Will the Housing Corporation budget be maintained or cut next year? If it is to be cut, how will the minimum projected level of output be achieved?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is flattering me—the Secretary of State attended the Cabinet, not I.

Mr. Raynsford: I stand corrected. I understood that the Secretary of State was absent and the right hon. Gentleman attended in his place. However, I shall still look forward to an illuminating response to the question, as I presume that he has communicated with the Secretary of State on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting.
Reading through the Government's response to the report, it is blindingly obvious that the figures have been bent to meet the Government's preconceptions as to the scale of programme that they can afford. No allowance has been made of any possible trend that could point in a different direction. Let us briefly look at some of the statistics. First, I wish to refer to the extent of the backlog of unmet housing need. According to Alan Holmans, the backlog may be as high as 480,000: 110,000 concealed households, 140,000 sharing households, 50,000 would-be couples, 55,000 owner-occupiers seeking a move to social housing for reasons of health or age, 25,000 home owners seeking social housing because they cannot pay their mortgages, and 100,000 single people either homeless or living in hostels.
The Government's response is derisory, and does not even address the issue. Instead, it tries to redefine the need in different and highly restrictive terms, referring to rough sleepers and households in bed and breakfasts as though these were the only categories in housing need. The DOE official who gave evidence with the Minister to the Committee referred to the
very few hundreds of rough sleepers plus a small number of people in bed and breakfast.
When challenged about those living in totally inadequate accommodation, he made the curious assertion:
I think it is more difficult to say that you should use those as an addition to the total number of houses you required because obviously one way of achieving improvement is to improve those houses.
That begs a number of questions. For example, what will be done to increase the rate at which those sub-standard homes are improved? As the Minister knows, the Government are dismantling the mandatory home renovation grant system and have consistently refused to countenance a comprehensive mandatory national licensing system for multi-occupied houses.
Even if the Government were energetically pursuing the problems of properties in a poor condition, the Minister must recognise that it is total nonsense to pretend that not one of the hundreds of thousands of people living in such conditions will need to be rehoused in social housing. If the Minister does pretend that that is the case, he should explain to the House why the first category listed in the clause of the Housing Bill that defines the groups of people who should be given priority in the allocation of social housing is
people occupying insanitary or over-crowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions".
Does the Minister intend to amend the Housing Bill when it comes back to the House on Monday on the ground that everybody living in such conditions should be assisted by the renovation of their homes rather than the allocation of social housing? That is the implication of his official's response to the reasonable questions of the members of the Select Committee.
The Government's position on the backlog of unmet housing needs is untenable, but their stance on the scope for increased owner-occupation is equally suspect. I shall not go into the complex methodology of the "net stock" approach to estimating housing needs, but it is based on assumptions about the numbers likely to resolve their housing needs through other options.
The extent of owner-occupation is critical to those assumptions. The Government's response can only be described as that of an ostrich—they are sticking their head firmly in the sand to avoid seeing the unpleasant evidence from the surrounding world. The experience of negative equity, repossessions, recession and anxiety and insecurity in the market are not features that the Government wish to countenance, so they simply assert that owner-occupation will grow from 68 per cent. to 71 per cent. by 2001. As the Select Committee recognised—and all the evidence from people in the know reinforced the message—the growth of owner-occupation has slowed dramatically because of the impact of the recession, which was caused by the Government's economic mismanagement. As a result, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which probably has the greatest expertise on that subject, believes that the likelihood of


the 71 per cent. figure being reached by 2001 is remote. The prospects for continued growth in home ownership are less favourable than in previous decades, but the Government are blithely ignoring that evidence. The truth is that the Government's estimate of the growth in owner-occupation is unlikely to cover needs. Apart from that, the assumptions on owner-occupation—and, therefore, the Government's ability to reduce the need for social housing in the next few years through owner-occupation—are out of line with all informed opinion in the housing world. I doubt whether the Minister would be willing to wager his shirt on a 71 per cent. level of home ownership by the year 2001. If he is, I will gladly take the bet.
Government estimates of the scale of housing need are hopelessly inadequate and their estimates of the scale of housing demand are equally at odds with reality, but in a different way. Government estimates of housing demand, published last year, project that an additional 4.4 million households will require housing in the 25 years from 1991 to 2016. The accuracy of those figures may be debatable, but the broad consensus of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee was that the forecasts were sound and that, in the past, such forecasts have generally tended to underestimate rather than overestimate the level of demand. Projections imply a need for some 4.4 million extra homes between 1991 and 2016. We are already one fifth of the way to 2016 and if the trends of the past five years are continued, we will fall dramatically short of the necessary level of housing provision. In the past five years, we have started just over 700,000 homes in total—including public, private, and housing association provision. At that rate, we shall be short of the necessary figure of 4.4 million homes by 2016 by some 800,000. Quite simply, that will be a recipe for increased homelessness, overcrowding and housing deprivation, as well as posing a risk of house price inflation if effective demand is allowed to run too far ahead of supply.
The Minister may suggest that the market will respond quickly to any such imbalance; but the housing market does not tend to respond quickly to overcome such imbalances, and it often cannot because of planning restrictions. The housing market has proved highly volatile in the past, with wild fluctuations and extreme boom-bust cycles. Millions of home owners rue the impact of the last major boom-bust cycle in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The price of the Government's mismanagement of the economy and the housing market, stoking up an unsustainable boom in the 1980s and then turning their back on the victims when the market collapsed in the 1990s, is the very large number of people who have endured the anguish of repossession and the misery of negative equity.
We must learn the lessons of the past and ensure that the housing market is helped to grow at a modest but sustainable rate, and we must avoid any return to unsustainable boom-bust cycles. That is why the Government should now be extremely worried that housing output has been allowed to fall seriously behind the levels necessary to meet the demand anticipated for the next two decades. If that is not corrected soon, we may well find ourselves heading for another inflationary

boom, and that would do no good to the housing market or the millions of households who would end up suffering as a result.
The policies pursued by the present Government in the past 17 years have involved a betrayal of their responsibilities to house the nation. They have betrayed every section of the community. They have betrayed home owners. They have betrayed leaseholders, whom they promised to help and then sold out to the interests of the big landowners who bankroll the Tory party. They have betrayed tenants, whether private, council—

Sir Irvine Patnick: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: Oh yes they do. We saw what happened to the 1993 leasehold reform measure. We saw that, and we saw the betrayal of leaseholders by the removal of the right to manage from the Housing Bill earlier this summer.
The Government have betrayed tenants, whether private, council or housing association, by forcing up rents, cutting investment, reducing tenancy rights and plunging an increasing number into benefit dependency and poverty traps.
The Government have betrayed the homeless, using the Housing Bill to remove the statutory safety net that has been there for 17 years, and which every informed organisation concerned with the homeless—every church, every housing association, every voluntary body involved with the homeless—says is a necessary and correct way to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and provides proper cover and help.
The Government's housing record is a disgrace, which will come back to haunt them as we approach the general election. Of the many reasons for which the Government will deserve to lose that election, their failure to meet the housing needs of our nation will be among the most powerful and persuasive. Their lamentable and inadequate response to the Select Committee report will provide a revealing and telling epitaph to a dying and discredited Government.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): There is a difference between a Government or Opposition day, in which we engage in the normal polemics of this place, and the opportunity for a more reflective and discursive approach that a Select Committee report provides. I plan to choose the less exciting of those approaches, but it may be more appropriate.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) may have forgotten that the Housing Bill has almost completed its passage through Parliament—although we join for what may be our last passage of arms in that matter on Monday—because he made his familiar speech again. I could have written the peroration myself. I have heard it so often that I have come to know it almost by heart, but it deserved a slightly wider audience—of three rather than two.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) chairs the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence. I also had the pleasure of his company on the Housing Bill Standing Committee. After the first


sitting, he complained that too many documents and too much paper were being thrown at him. It reminds me—my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) will recall this—of George III's response to Edward Gibbon's latest production: "Another damn volume, Mr. Gibbon."
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish remarked on the structure of the Select Committee, but that is not for me to respond to. He intelligently summarised the issues raised by the Select Committee report and, broadly speaking, I intend to follow the structure of his remarks in responding to the points that have been made. He talked about the human circumstances of housing and homelessness, 1 he economic cost of housing in individual and national terms, and the crucial issue of planning.
I understand the instincts of people who wish to protect the open countryside, the green areas between built-up zones, the woodlands and our traditional rural landscape. I should strike a small note of caution, however, because someone with a house overlooking the countryside may have a slightly different sense of priorities from someone whose aspirations for a home have not yet been met. One of our central dilemmas in dealing with housing is that building houses is not popular and meets enormous resistance.
It is easy for the housing lobbies and those of us in housing politics to say where we think people should live and where it is convenient for them to live—it may not be where we happen to live ourselves—and to forget the tremendous resistance to construction. Whenever plans are submitted, or housing allocations in the home counties or further afield are published, there is resistance because people genuinely feel that there is a cost to be paid in terms of land being taken. The answer must be to build on the so-called brown-field sites, but to say that every element of housing need can be satisfied in that way is not only extremely prescriptive but puts more housing on those sites than they can sustain.
We all agree that it is difficult to come up with a formula for the estimates that is not within a wide bracket because they are based on so many uncertainties and permutations. Tonight, we have discussed two sets of estimates: first, the household projection estimates and, secondly, the estimates of need. The household projection estimates are that there will be 4.4 million new households by 2016. The hon. Member for Greenwich was right to say that, historically, we have tended to underestimate rather than overestimate housing needs. They result from many factors: population growth, which is one of the major factors; changing age structures; changes in behaviour; and the number of single-person households, which is growing in every age group. That category includes not just single or unmarried mothers, but single people throughout the age range.
The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) mentioned the problem of elderly people. Obviously, a better use of our towns and cities must be a priority. We have set a target of ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new build is on sites that have 'been used before. We have now attained 49 per cent., whereas in the 1980s we managed less than 40 per cent. We must constantly see how we can improve that percentage because, in some areas, building is part of regenerating arid enhancing our cities. It is part of improving the environment, not what is regarded as a

constant erosion of it. It may not be a panacea, but we must look in that direction for a significant part of our new build.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is right to say that we should make better use of our existing stock. There are 800,000 empty properties in England, 700,000 of which are in the private sector. That is why we are doing our best to encourage the use of those properties. Housing associations have an important role to play in buying and restoring derelict buildings.
No one can come up with precise figures on the calculation of housing demand—many extrapolations are built into the formulas—but I agree that we must keep the figures under review and develop our methods of assessing need. We are looking ahead, and we have asked the department of applied economics at Cambridge to develop an economic model that will enable us to establish the possible future need for social housing under a range of different scenarios. I do not think that there will be a definitive answer to the question.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised some important issues about the unfortunate people who do not have homes. He made an important point about the difficulty of coexistence between homeless people and residents. For example, we have to seek planning permission for our winter shelters. In addition, people have difficulty finding a conventional shelter.
People also look for wet shelters, for detoxification units and for shelters where people with mental health problems can go, which are more difficult to find. Hon. Members must have experienced resistance in their constituencies when approval has been sought to provide an establishment for people who have behavioural problems. No matter what reassurances are given, people usually think that there is a good reason to place the shelter somewhere else.
A homeless person in a hostel is better than a homeless person in the street—for the person concerned and for the residents. There is too much facile discussion about homelessness and too many assumptions that if a homeless person is plonked in a home they will be all right—they may have been homeless for many years, and they may have a multiplicity of disadvantages.
A month or so ago, I visited a Salvation Army shelter in Whitechapel, and talked to a young person in his accommodation. He said that it is terrifying to be given a key, because that is responsibility. He said, "I have to take control of my own life now." He admitted that that was a difficult thing for him to do and that occasionally he was tempted to walk out of the shelter and back on to the street. The framework of care is crucial in helping people who have these difficulties.

Mrs. Maddock: I am interested in what the Minister is saying about the element of care. I hope that he will say these things during the review on benefits as fervently as he is saying them here. I have made representations to the Minister on this issue. Many people are concerned that the packages will not add up if we do not have that care element in benefit.

Mr. Curry: I understand the hon. Lady's concern in this regard. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South talked about the foyer


projects. I understand their importance, but they are not a panacea. There is a temptation to look for something that is the answer to all the problems of homelessness, but it ought to be resisted.
Today, I opened a different sort of project, called off the street and into work, which attempts to place homeless people in skilled employment. They will not be employed because they are homeless; they will be employed because they have the skills. The fact that they are homeless will be irrelevant. If they have a job, they will be able to acquire a home—which is important when they try to get a job—and they will be able to have a more "conventional" and self-sustaining life style. The scheme has a wide range of business support as well as London local authority support. Voluntary organisations are familiar with the rough sleepers initiative. It is a market-oriented way of helping homeless people. I was privileged to open the initiative this morning and to see how effective it is.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is correct: the record of local authorities in turning over property for collecting rents is improving. Some authorities have a long way to go, but the overall record is improving, which is good.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the problem of houses in the wrong places. He said that we should take the jobs to the people rather than force the people to migrate to find jobs. I believe that both circumstances will always prevail. I offer the example of the efforts of development corporations, the jobs that Nissan has created in the north-east of England, and the jobs that have followed the Korean investment and the Siemens relocation.
We have tried to create new opportunities to allow people to remain in their areas because we know that they are attached to the concept of locality and neighbourhood, but we want people to migrate elsewhere if that is how they seek to improve themselves.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the wrong type of house. That is an important issue: needs change. We must deal with the problem of under-occupation, as it is known in the jargon. More than half a million local authority and housing association tenants have two or more spare bedrooms. We do not propose to say, "We must decant you because we need the space for someone else." People may want to be able to have family members to stay or, what is more, they may have been brought up in those properties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) referred, in a fascinating historical account, to that crucial sense of belonging and identity. Over the years, we have learnt from programmes such as slum clearance—which, as far as I was concerned, was first highlighted in the book "The Life and Death of a Great American City"—the effect of uprooting people from their neighbourhoods and the resulting social problems. We aim for a better match, but that policy is necessarily inefficient in economic terms. We cannot avoid that: we put up with the inefficiency because the social considerations are more important.
Hon. Members returned time and again to the notion of community and regeneration. That is at the heart of housing policy. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to difficult housing estates. My hon. Friend the

Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned that problem, as did many others. We have moved away from a pure renovation estate action type of programme—however impressive that appears—to a more integrated approach. The evidence from around Europe—not just in the United Kingdom—points to the fact that, if crucial elements are missing, there is a danger of decline. A spanking new estate may be completed and still look good five years later, but 10 years down the road it may face all the old problems because we failed to tackle the social difficulties within the estate framework.

Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of life on many council housing estates has been transformed by the right-to-manage scheme, whereby the Government have transferred the management of estates to their tenants? Will he examine closely the actions of the Labour-controlled Blackpool council, which has deliberately sought to frustrate the wishes of the tenants of the Queen's Park estate in my constituency? They want to exercise the right to manage and they have been trained to do so by Department of the Environment schemes, but they have been confronted by the underhand tactics of Blackpool council's housing authority. Will my right hon. Friend investigate their complaints?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right: that is an important issue. Since 1990, 112 tenant management organisations have been set up, and more than 100 are in the process of being formed. I hear what he says about the problems in his constituency, and I am willing to examine any difficulties there. As a matter of fact, this morning I signed the order making Blackpool a unitary authority. Perhaps the extra responsibility will bring additional openness to the council's actions. I also signed the order for Blackburn.

Mr. Elletson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend takes a somewhat different view but, as Blackpool will now have additional responsibility, perhaps it will review its behaviour and we will find that responsibility brings some improvement.
The estate renewal programme makes an important contribution to difficult estates. Several hon. Members have said that we should not become fixed on one form of institutional solution, and I agree. Large-scale voluntary transfers have a significant role to play. The estate renewal programme is based on the need to help the worst estates which, frankly, must be given away if they are to be transferred. That approach involves a mixture of demolition and renovation.
Sandwell was one of the first authorities to be included in the scheme and to go to a new social landlord. Two or three of the first schemes in that programme are planning transfers to the new housing companies which will shortly be made possible by new legislation. We are therefore beginning to see diversification in the forms transfer can take and the nature of the social landlords to which property can be transferred. I think that that is a welcome flexibility and I hope that all the mechanisms will be used in the circumstances which seem most sensible for a particular estate.
Hon. Members are right when they say that a sense of ownership is important. The Bonamy estate in Southwark, which is also known to the hon. Member for Greenwich, has benefited from demolition, rebuild and recreation of the street pattern. People there have gardens. The hon. Gentleman and I shared a platform at Central hall, Westminster, where, to our mutual distress, we found ourselves on the same side on a number of points. We found ourselves defending people's right to have a garden as a means of expressing their identity. A garden is often an individual and personal thing. We had a detailed discussion with one tenant about what was the best form of winter-flowering cherry. For anyone who is particularly interested, it is a prunus subhirtella autumnalis.
Holly street in the east end of London, a deck access estate, had all the social problems with which we are now familiar, but it is now an attractive area. However much we might scorn the eponymous Acacia avenue, the Acacia avenues work better in social and human terms than the tower blocks of the 1960s and 1970s. They were created with the best of motives, and I will not scorn what was then believed to be an answer to a difficult problem until we are confident that the ones that we now espouse will be better.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised the crucial issue of where we should put houses, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) because of their concern about the countryside. The brown-field sites must play a significant part. We need to knit it into the programmes to rebuild the cities and to make them work better.
I have no responsibility for planning matters, but occasionally I venture into the realm of planning policies. Planning policies and their revision are buttresses of that wider policy. Without them we would find it more difficult to build houses in the cities, to have people wanting to live in the cities and to create the demand that flows from the city centre. It is too easy to think that a 24-hour city is achieved by keeping the pubs open until 2 am. That is not the case. The demand needs to be generated by people of different sorts, different tenures, different backgrounds and different occupations living in cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam described what has happened in Sheffield from a historical perspective and from his own experience, and he gave particularly apt examples of what makes the city work. We are trying to make the cities much more attractive, but the concern for the countryside is real. I represent the Yorkshire Dales national park, so I appreciate that. I understand the problems of summer and winter lets and the problem of second properties—a matter my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised, as did the hon. Member for Hillsborough from a completely different perspective.
There are villages in my constituency where I suspect that the majority of properties are second homes. The election material of all parties at the last election is probably still on the doormat of some of them. The national park even embarked on a policy of trying to restrict new building in the park to people for whom it would be the principal home, and we are engaged in a debate with the national park authority about that policy. That policy demonstrates once again that we must

recognise that house building is an activity in which it is too easy to believe in theory, but which it is difficult to accept in practice when it is too close.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) talked about private sector renovation and housing renewal areas. I think that he acknowledges—I am glad that he got the right Bill this time; I recall that he once started a speech but then realised that he had chosen the wrong occasion on which to make it—that the mandatory grants system was not working. We need a more strategic approach. His local authority will be able to use the new legislation as part of an area renewal programme.
Quite frankly, I am not surprised that local authorities said, "It would be nice if we could meet all the demand," but they know that that is not realistic, so the measures that we have taken are sensible in the circumstances.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing investment trusts are important. It is right that the balance of housing in the United Kingdom is different from that on the continent. Since taking this job, I have constantly said that we need a better equilibrium in the housing market between owner-occupation—about which I do not have a particular hang-up—private rented and social rented to try to create more diversity and choice.
I am particularly concerned that young people, when looking for accommodation at the start of their working or married life, should have the choice of high-quality private rented accommodation. What distinguishes the housing pattern in Britain from the continent is that many young people here go into owner-occupation, partly because they do not have the necessary choice. The pattern for the older age ranges is much more common across the European countries. We need diversification.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and others mentioned the elderly in community care. I have asked the Government offices to hold discussions this year with some local housing authorities in each region, specifically to discuss their action to co-ordinate work on housing with work on social and health services. They will take place either when the Government offices visit the authority to talk about the housing investment programme submissions or at meetings specially set up for the purpose. As I have mentioned to the hon. Lady on a number of occasions, we have to produce the guidance to accompany the Housing Bill, and we are anxious that it should reflect best sensible practice.
I have been somewhat discursive, but I said at the beginning that I thought that that was the best way to reply to the debate. The exchanges have been useful, and the speeches of colleagues have ranged widely. The House does not provide sufficient occasions on which we can exchange ideas. I hope that my contribution has been of some assistance in demonstrating that, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, there is much common ground on an issue of crucial importance to all of us.

Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who has been on the Front Bench for much of the debate. It is appreciated in the House when Ministers come to listen and not just to participate.
I thank the other members of the Select Committee for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) seemed to apologise for entering into the debate. I stress that one of the functions of Select Committees is to carry out the inquiry and produce a report so that the whole House is better informed. Sadly, too often, the House does not take a blind bit of notice of the report, and all that happens is that members of the Select Committee further debate the report that they have produced. The contributions from hon. Members who were not members of the Select Committee were very welcome.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) reminded us of the importance, which we stressed in the report, of trying to bring people back into the city centres and bringing shops that are empty back into residential use. He also stressed the problem of local authority rates of relet. I have a slight reservation about that. It is possible to lump the figures together and say that an authority is reletting properties in four or five weeks; a more interesting question, however, is not how long it takes overall but how long it takes to relet the really popular properties. We cannot be too critical of an authority that takes 12 weeks to relet an unpopular estate, but I am worried when it takes six or eight weeks to relet popular properties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn ran down deck access flats, as did a number of other hon. Members. I understand the problems, but when I am in London I stay in a set of deck access flats in the Barbican. It is some of the nicest housing in London. If we knock down all the deck access flats, we may well have to take away a bit of the green belt. We must put a bit more effort into ensuring that all deck access flats are as nice to live in as those at the Barbican. The crucial thing about the Barbican is the amount that is spent on services and looking after the area. It may be better for the nation to spend money on introducing good services and maintenance in deck access flats than for us to knock them down, going for low densities and taking up more of our countryside.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—whose support on the Select Committee I appreciated—expressed enthusiasm for housing investment trusts. We must wait and see whether they manage to deliver. The Select Committee visited the west midlands and looked at some of the green belt around some of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I understand why he and other hon. Members passionately want to protect the green belt—indeed, I share their views—but we must find somewhere for the houses to go.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred to lifetime homes. I have made the same point, and I hope that the Government will consider it with much more sympathy. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) reminded us just how much of Britain could disappear under housing. We must go for high-density housing, and make it work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) made the important point that jobs go with housing. She then said, "Hands off the green belt." The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made a similar point, although he also mentioned the difference between

demand and need. Those are important issues. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised the problems of homeless people—referring to day shelters and day care—and the problems of second homes.
This has been a very useful debate. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am tempted to sit down, although I understand that you are in the procedurally awkward position of having to suspend the sitting for three minutes, but I think that it would be unfair of me to go on filibustering. Let me express my thanks to all involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot filibuster, or he will be brought to order.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Sitting suspended.

10 pm

On resuming—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Questions on Estimates 1996–97 (Class I, Vote 1, and Class VI, Vote 1).

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Class I, Vote

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £6,228,158,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on: personnel costs, etc of the armed forces and their reserves and cadet forces, etc; personnel costs, etc of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence; movements, certain stores, supplies and services; certain spares and maintenance; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; works services; certain contingent liabilities; certain services provided by other Government departments; some sundry services, subscriptions, grants and other payments, including those abroad, including assistance to foreign and Commonwealth governments for defence-related purposes; and set-up costs, loans and funding to trading funds.

Class VI, Vote

Resolved,
That a further, revised sum not exceeding £3,083,844,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; slum clearance, repairs and other improvements to private housing; payments to the Housing Corporation; the transfer of local authority estates to new landlords; accommodation for the homeless and special needs accommodation; housing management and mobility; rent officers and Rent Assessment Panels; grants for the provision of gypsy sites; grants to home improvement agencies; asylum seekers' special housing grant; for research projects, including European Community programmes; publicity; and for sundry other housing and construction services and projects.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates).

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £105,763,862,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1997, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 261, 262, 263 and 427

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mrs. Angela Knight do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1996 and 1997; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions relating to Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Anti-avoidance (Heating)) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1661), dated 26th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.

Motion made, and question put, forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (1) (a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
That the draft Deregulation (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
That the draft Deregulation (Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (9) (European Standing Committees),

PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1997

That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. COM (96) 300, the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1997, 6431/96 and 6431/96 COR 1, the proposal for an adjustment of the Financial Perspective; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.

MARITIME POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6813/96, towards a new maritime strategy, and endorses the Government's approach to it—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Local Authorities (Government Guidance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Sir Irvine Patnick: I have enjoyed sitting again on the Front Bench for nearly four hours but I had forgotten how uncomfortable the Benches are. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government guidance to local authorities on their responsibilities.
If asked what a local authority does, or should do, most people could reel off a list as long as their arm, and I am no exception. Even with the constraints of time, it will be a long list. If people are asked what a council does not do, the list may be even longer. With the passage of time, many councils have come a long way since they declared themselves nuclear-free zones; at least they have taken down the signs and gone some way towards conformity.
Whenever local authorities are discussed, one inevitably turns to the area that one knows best which, in my case, is Sheffield city council, on which I was privileged to serve as a councillor for more than 20 years. Many former councillors are currently active Members of the House of Commons—one of them was present during the previous debate.
Examining what Sheffield city council does is easy. The annual report of the city council contains a service charter, the introduction of which reminds everyone of the council's statutory performance indicators—providing that Sheffield people know what that means—whether the indicators are complied with and, above all, whom to contact if they are not. The Audit Commission, set up by the Government, publishes comparisons of councils' performances on a range of services that they provide. That helps when comparing one council with another, providing that citizens know where to look for the information.
Sheffield city council is now in partnership with many organisations in the city. The council now co-operates with the Government, rather than conflicts with them, which used to be the way that it operated. I invite the Minister to travel around Hallam with me when he is next on one of his frequent visits to the city. He should not be shocked or alarmed when he sees an invasion of Daleks on traffic islands. Those plastic, crenellated cones are coloured bright yellow and have a black stripe across them, bearing the legend, "Danger—high voltage". They stand motionless and inhabit the places where the traffic bollards used to be—those bollards have not been replaced.
My hon. Friend will also come across no entry street signs at the junctions of roads such as Steel road and Neill road, and Carrington road and Ecclesall road. The signs can hardly be seen as they have never been replaced, repainted or even made to stand upright. My hon. Friend will also see unswept and hazardous pavements. If he has second sight, he will see road signs that are not visible due to overhanging trees. He will see street lights that have not been repaired; yellow paint that is visible on minor roads where potholes have been marked out for some time, but not yet repaired; sporadic grass cutting; and trees that have been chopped down in a rush one weekend at places such as Willow Croft in Fulwood—months later, the site has still not been developed.

Sheffield city council's annual report lists nine items in the Sheffield charter. Three of them are:
The highest quality services possible with the resources we have at our disposal
Services which are responsive to your needs and views
and
Prompt remedial action if services do not come up to the standards we promise".
I contend that those standards have been found wanting. Surely it is the role of any council to ensure that they are met.
The Sheffield newspaper The Star has waged campaigns on unlit traffic islands that are hazardous, potholes in the roads that are dangerous and other road safety aspects. I am grateful to Neil Fieldhouse, the political editor of The Star, for his forbearance.
It is extremely difficult in a short debate not to raise areas of council work that are not within the local government responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister, but council responsibilities stem from the cash that is allocated by Government, using various formulae and indicators; each council then determines its own priorities.
Accident prevention features highly in what I deem to be a council's priorities, yet my offers to lobby the relevant Minister are dismissed by the council. I contend that street lighting should work to enable people to see and be seen, pavements should be swept, road signs should be made more visible, street lights and potholes should be repaired and street names should be visible. Road side weeds should be removed, grass verges cut on a regular basis and damaged bollards replaced. Surely the council's role is to ensure that this is done.
This is not a "Let's knock Sheffield" debate. I am proud of the city and do much to ensure that every possible crumb of the Government's financial cake goes to Sheffield. I have joined parliamentary colleagues and members of the city council in lobbying Ministers on many occasions, which has sometimes resulted in success. We have lobbied for things ranging from an inner ring road in Sheffield to a development corporation for the city.
I well remember endeavouring to get a development corporation for Sheffield and the opposition that I encountered in the city to the new, and as far as those people were concerned, alien concept. When I made representations to the late Lord Ridley, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, he informed me that I required the support of businesses in Sheffield before the matter could be considered. That was readily forthcoming and, now, the lower Don valley has changed greatly from what was at one time a totally run down and derelict area, where confidence had vanished.
From the development corporation's inception, it began assembling sites suitable for business and the new infrastructure that would be required to improve transport access. Sites were compulsorily purchased to bring together the fragmented ownership and the development corporation used its financial resources to decontaminate land and prepare sites for sale. It was not a speedy process and the physical appearance of the valley changed little at first, but as the sites were reclaimed and the infrastructure built, the east end of Sheffield was transformed, like a phoenix rising from the ashes.


A £33 million dual carriageway link road now runs through the valley, putting all parts of it within easy access of the motorway. Old, dilapidated buildings have been refurbished to a high standard by a programme that targeted prominent routes and areas. The environment has not been neglected either. The River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley canal, which run the full length of the valley, have been improved and form the basis for a footpath-cycle network and waterside locations. They have been opened up not only for development but for public access. Through the development corporation's efforts, the derelict canal basin has emerged as a model development and leisure complex. It was once called the Canal wharf. It is near the city centre and is now better known as Victoria quays. It has led to a ripple development in the vicinity, which includes the city centre and the valley generally.
Sheffield development corporation's actions have revitalised a dilapidated area of Sheffield and had a knock-on effect in the rest of the city. The impressions that people once had when driving along the Tinsley viaduct passing Sheffield have been greatly improved.
It is obvious to anyone that housing development could, and indeed should, take place in the area. The area was considered at one time as a site for a higher education establishment—a far cry from the old image. Under the chairmanship of Hugh Sykes and chief executive Graham Kendall, the SDC has brought back into use areas that, for decades, were lost to dereliction. In addition, an airport brokered through Government assistance is under construction. We have a revitalised sector of the city where industry is thriving and Sheffield has benefited.
Up to March this year, the SDC has reclaimed 593 acres of land, built 12.7 km of road, secured 3.7 million sq ft of floor space and created nearly 12,750 jobs. It has secured £577 million of private sector investment—all from a Government grant of £93.2 million.
The questions for the Minister are: what will happen when Sheffield development corporation, which I was instrumental in helping to set up, comes to the end of its life, and how will the momentum that it created continue? In March, the Yorkshire and Humberside planning strategy for the next decade was set out in the document, "Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and Humberside", which gives local authorities a broad framework for development and planning.
The document aims to encourage sustainable development in Yorkshire and Humberside, by means of four main objectives—promoting economic prosperity and competitiveness, conserving the environment, helping with urban regeneration and making the best use of available resources. It sets out the idea of economic development by creating a partnership between the public and private sectors and through the use of inward investment.
The document echoes the work of Sheffield development corporation, saying that derelict land should be revitalised and town centres maintained. The question is: should that activity be channelled through local authorities? The document gives priority to regenerating the region's inner cities and former coalfields, and to the co-ordination of planning and transport policies. It also advises that protection should be given to the countryside, and says that future generations should not suffer from today's development.
The Minister will recollect a previous debate in which I drew to his attention a proposal in Sheffield city council's unitary development plan to reduce the green belt. The Minister's actions persuaded the council to do otherwise. The Government have increased the green belt, and I have nothing but praise for them for introducing the first-ever audit of environmental issues, in the document "This Common Inheritance"—an audit which is updated every year. I commend that document to everyone with an interest not only in the environment but in the well-being of the United Kingdom.
Detailed guidance is given to local authorities on planning matters, but what guidance on other matters is given, for the sake of the well-being of the community? That information does not appear to be as readily available as information on planning. Through a series of questions for written answer, I have endeavoured to bring the issue into the public domain.
Different councils allocate different priorities in the attempt to ensure that grass cutting, the collection of rents, rates and taxes, the reletting of council houses, the recycling of waste and a wide range of other activities are carried out. Yet how does a council tax payer become aware of a local authority's performance indicators, which are provided by the Audit Commission? What efforts have been made to improve councils' quality of complaints procedures, as outlined in chart 18 of the Audit Commission's publication?
Recently, I questioned in the House the setting up of the Yorkshire and Humberside assembly. Suddenly and, it appears, from nowhere, local authorities have found the money to set up that assembly. The councils seem to have found no problems in raising the cash for that purpose, which is a far cry from the story that they usually peddle.
The assembly will meddle in affairs in which councils have no statutory authority. A regional assembly will be another tier of government, like the old South Yorkshire county council, and it is to be imposed on the people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for his active support in questioning the setting up of the assembly. Truly, the question that needs to be answered is: is that assembly really needed?
I welcome inward investment, and Sheffield has a labour force second to none. It is located in a wonderful area with many facilities, including land, but when push comes to shove, Government grant helps too. I therefore ask the Minister how people can ensure that the work that councils have powers to do, and which is in accordance with their responsibilities, is done satisfactorily.
If residents cannot do that, how can they complain? The information should be readily available, and provided in a simple manner. Perhaps in this short debate the Minister will spell out in plain language Government guidance for local authorities on what their responsibilities are, and who is to oversee them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have had the privilege and pleasure of getting two bites of the cherry today, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) has talked about Sheffield in two separate debates. I had the good fortune to hear his earlier


speech, although admittedly through the television network, and I found that as fascinating as I found the speech that he has just made. As the House knows, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of representing Sheffield in the House and in local government. Therefore, it is important that we should listen to the points he makes.
My hon. Friend has focused on Sheffield, and it is probably sensible if I do the same. However, I do so with some caution. Although my knowledge of Sheffield is increasing—it is based on statistics and comments from business men and industry and a number of visits—it is nowhere near that of my hon. Friend.
At long last, Sheffield city council has started to recognise that changes are needed and has taken steps to improve its performance. Debates such as tonight's will help that.
As an ethnic minority immigrant, I can say that Sheffield is renowned throughout the world. It is a great city, with a great history. The people of Sheffield are fabulous people who are proud of their city. Many people are surprised to learn that, despite the restructuring and rationalisation of the 1980s, the steel industry for which Sheffield is internationally famous now produces more steel than ever before, and is more profitable. The greatest difference—which I have discussed with my hon. Friend while standing in Sheffield—is that now one can see it. The old smokestacks are gone, and the environment has greatly improved.
Sheffield can no longer rely on a single industry for employment. The city needs to grow and diversify, but the council appears not to make that a priority. I still hear complaints that the council is anti-business. As a result, in desperation at the council's attitude and in recognition of the problems—and with considerable prompting from my hon. Friend—the development corporation was set up.
I shall not spend much time on that. The Development Corporation is extremely successful, and has revitalised the lower Don valley, which is now an attractive location for industry, distribution and office development. My hon. Friend mentioned the airport, which is an example of partnership between Sheffield development corporation, English Partnerships and the private sector. I am not sure whether the local authority was involved, or even adopted a positive attitude.
However, as my hon. Friend has said, all urban development corporations were intended to be limited-life bodies. They need to reach a conclusion, and the Sheffield development corporation will be the next one to wind up in March 1997. The remaining development corporations will wind up in March 1998.
We all recognise that suitable arrangements must be in place to ensure that the corporation's achievements are safeguarded and maintained, and that the osmosis of that success into surrounding areas continues. The local authority and other agencies such as English Partnerships have been actively involved in ensuring that the achievements of the development corporation will be maintained.
That commitment and the partnership between public and private sector—English Partnerships is an example of an interim body—will force local authorities to continue

to move the city ahead and adopt a different attitude. It is happening already, although Sheffield has been one of the slowest to change.
Arrangements have also been made in the context of the Government's current policy towards urban regeneration. I refer to the single regeneration budget challenge funding, which compels authorities such as Sheffield to perform sufficiently well to gain funding. The challenge funding approach forces authorities to modernise their thinking and work in partnership with other agencies, particularly the private sector. Sheffield was typically—I say it with a deep sigh—slow to grasp that. Its bids under rounds 1 and 2 of city challenge were full of the old socialist claptrap. They were rejected, and deservedly so.
I am pleased, however, that Sheffield learned from that rejection. It took a while, but it happened. Its later single regeneration budget bids had changed out of all recognition and were successful. Sheffield received £38 million over seven years in round 1, and £36 million over seven years in round 2. The city's two main SRB challenge fund schemes are among the largest approvals in the country.
My hon. Friend will accept that that shows that Shefield city council finally recognises the importance of the matter. These schemes will lever in more than £140 million of other funding, of which nearly £90 million will come from the private sector. The importance of partnership has finally sunk in to Sheffield. If it can sink in to the minds of those councillors, there is hope everywhere. These schemes, and a further £22 million approved under the SRB estates renewal challenge funding, will make a significant contribution to the continued regeneration of this important city.
My hon. Friend portrayed a dismal litany of inadequate maintenance in Sheffield—daleks, potholes, broken street lights, dirty or hazardous pavements and the rest. I have tripped over them in the streets. However, I must add that Sheffield is by no means alone—many Labour and Liberal authorities have similar records. Funnily enough, there are even worse examples—but few. There is, however, some evidence that Sheffield is moving away from this record. I was particularly pleased to hear that the nuclear-free zone signs have been taken down—or perhaps they fell down.
These matters touch on what is, I think, the nub of what my hon. Friend has described—the lack of quality services that citizens in some areas get from their local councils, and what they can do about it. First, councils are ultimately accountable at the ballot box. If people are dissatisfied, they alone can vote out those who run their councils—particularly if all the information is provided. Local accountability rests on this. We have done a great deal in recent years to ensure that better information about performance is available.
What does the information show about Sheffield? I have touched on some of the statistics, and my hon. Friend has done so in an earlier debate. Some 7 per cent. of council tenants are more than 13 weeks in arrears with their rent. That is better than Liverpool, where the figure is 18 per cent., but much worse than the average. These arrears are then loaded on to the more honest citizens, who have to pay.
Sheffield is the second slowest metropolitan council in deciding housing planning applications. What is more, between 1993–94 and 1994–95, the percentage decided


within eight weeks—our standard—fell by more than 10 per cent. In addition, one should be cautious before eating in the restaurants of Sheffield. On average, metropolitan authorities inspect 79 per cent. of those premises that are due for a look. Four councils—Bolton, Knowsley, Dudley and Solihull—achieved 100 per cent., but Sheffield managed less than 20 per cent. I cannot give a list of those that passed.
My hon. Friend knows the story of Supertram better than me, and Sheffield is finally taking action to privatise the enterprise and to stem the haemorrhage of public funds. But the bottom line for local taxpayers this year is that, with only half the hoped-for passenger usage, there will be losses of more than £6 million, with more to come. The belated sale will still leave taxpayers saddled with paying huge residual debts, on top of the major debts incurred by the world student games—which would raise a smile if it were not so disastrous for local people.
I trust that the council tax payers in Sheffield and elsewhere in South Yorkshire will make their councillors answer for that, and ensure that they will in future sit on the sidelines and allow somebody competent to take over.
I trust, but I do not believe, that the new regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside will prove a sensible exercise in co-operation. I hope, perhaps in vain, that it is not a politically motivated attempt to promote

further waste by imposing more bureaucracy that is to be paid for by the taxpayer. We will watch it, and make sure that the voters in the area are aware of what is going on.
Like my hon. Friend, I have no intention of knocking Sheffield. The city council has shed much of its past image, and is clearly taking steps in the right direction. At the end of the day, what we will need for Sheffield and other areas is what we will get after the next election—a Conservative Government who will ensure that Labour authorities are forced to behave in a responsible manner.
Many of the changes by Sheffield and other councils have been brought about directly by Conservative policies. In the past 17 years, we have introduced a range of measures to increase local accountability, to improve local council performance and to enhance value for money. At last, they are starting to bite in Sheffield. We have constructed a framework within which local government can adopt three roles—as an enabler, regulator and, above all, community leader. I suspect, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam may agree, that we need a Conservative Government to ensure that the improvement continues. We aim to ensure that the country has an effective and locally accountable system of local government that gives value for money and the quality of public services that the people of Sheffield deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.